instruction
stringlengths 462
44.8k
| output
stringclasses 332
values | task
stringclasses 139
values |
|---|---|---|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Petitioner seeks a stay of execution on the theory that either Congress or the Legislature of the State of Texas might determine that actions of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) should be given controlling weight in determining that a violation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations is grounds for vacating the sentence imposed in this suit. Under settled principles, these possibilities are too remote to justify an order from this Court staying the sentence imposed by the Texas courts. And neither the President nor the Governor of the State of Texas has represented to us that there is any likelihood of congressional or state legislative action.
It is up to Congress whether to implement obligations undertaken under a treaty which (like this one) does not itself have the force and effect of domestic law sufficient to set aside the judgment or the ensuing sentence, and Congress has not progressed beyond the bare introduction of a bill in the four years since the IC J ruling and the four months since our ruling in Medellín v. Texas, 552 U. S. 491 (2008). This inaction is consistent with the President’s decision in 2005 to withdraw the United States’ accession to jurisdiction of the ICJ with regard to matters arising under the Convention.
The beginning premise for any stay, and indeed for the assumption that Congress or the legislature might seek to intervene in this suit, must be that petitioner’s confession was obtained unlawfully. This is highly unlikely as a matter of domestic or international law. Other arguments seeking to establish that a violation of the Convention constitutes grounds for showing the invalidity of the state-court judgment, for instance because counsel was inadequate, are also insubstantial, for the reasons noted in our previous opinion. Id., at 502, n. 1.
The Department of Justice of the United States is well aware of these proceedings and has not chosen to seek our intervention. Its silence is no surprise: The United States has not wavered in its position that petitioner was not prejudiced by his lack of consular access.
The application to recall and stay the mandate and for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Scalia, and by him referred to the Court, is denied. The application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Scalia, and by him referred to the Court, is denied. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
A state-owned public television broadcaster sponsored a candidate debate from which it excluded an independent candidate with little popular support. The issue before us is whether, by reason of its state ownership, the station had a constitutional obligation to allow every candidate access to the debate. "We conclude that, unlike most other public television programs, the candidate debate was subject to constitutional constraints applicable to nonpublic fora under our forum precedents. Even so, the broadcaster’s decision to exclude the candidate was a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral exercise of journalistic discretion.
I
Petitioner, the Arkansas Educational Television Commission (AETC), is an Arkansas state agency owning and operating a network of five noncommercial television stations (Arkansas Educational Television Network or AETN). The eight members of AETC are appointed by the Governor for 8-year terms and are removable only for good cause. Ark. Code Ann. §§ 6-3-102(a)(1), (b)(1) (Supp. 1997), § 25-16-804(b)(1) (1996). AETC members are barred from holding any other state or federal office, with the exception of teaeh-ing positions. Ark. Code Ann. § 6-3-102(a)(3) (Supp. 1997). To insulate its programming decisions from political pressure, AETC employs an executive director and professional staff who exercise broad editorial discretion in planning the network’s programming. AETC has also adopted the Statement of Principles of Editorial Integrity in Public Broadcasting, which counsel adherence to “generally accepted broadcasting industry standards, so that the programming service is free from pressure from political or financial supporters.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 82a.
In the spring of 1992, AETC staff began planning a series of debates between candidates for federal office in the November 1992 elections. AETC decided to televise a total of five debates, scheduling one for the Senate election and one for each of the four congressional elections in Arkansas. Working in close consultation with Bill Simmons, Arkansas Bureau Chief for the Associated Press, AETC staff developed a debate format allowing about 53 minutes during each 1-hour debate for questions to and answers by the candidates. Given the time constraint, the staff and Simmons “decided to limit participation in the debates to the major party candidates or any other candidate who had strong popular support.” Record, Affidavit of Bill Simmons ¶ 5.
On June 17,1992, AETC invited the Republican and Democratic candidates for Arkansas’ Third Congressional District to participate in the AETC debate for that seat. Two months later, after obtaining the 2,000 signatures required by Arkansas law, see Ark. Code Ann. § 7-7-103(c)(l) (Supp. 1993), respondent Ralph Forbes was certified as an independent candidate qualified to appear on the ballot for the seat. Forbes was a perennial candidate who had sought, without success, a number of elected offices in Arkansas. On August 24, 1992, he wrote to AETC requesting permission to participate in the debate for his district, scheduled for October 22,1992. On September 4, AETC Executive Director Susan Howarth denied Forbes’ request, explaining that AETC had “made a bona fide journalistic judgement that our viewers would best be served by limiting the debate” to the candidates already invited. App. 61.
On October 19,1992, Forbes filed suit against AETC, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief as well as damages. Forbes claimed he was entitled to participate in the debate under both the First Amendment and 47 U. S. C. §315, which affords political candidates a limited right of access to television air time. Forbes requested a preliminary injunction mandating his inclusion in the debate. The District Court denied the request, as did the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The District Court later dismissed Forbes’ action for failure to state a claim.
Sitting en banc, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Forbes’ statutory claim, holding that he had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. The court reversed, however, the dismissal of Forbes’ First Amendment claim. Observing that AETC is a state actor, the court held Forbes had “a qualified right of access created by AETN’s sponsorship of a debate, and that AETN must have [had] a legitimate reason to exclude him strong enough to survive First Amendment scrutiny.” Forbes v. Arkansas Ed. Television Network Foundation, 22 F. 3d 1423, 1428 (CA8), cert. denied, 513 U. S. 995 (1994), 514 U. S. 1110 (1995). Because AETC had not yet filed an answer to Forbes’ complaint, it had not given any reason for excluding him from the debate, and the Court of Appeals remanded the action for further proceedings.
On remand, the District Court found as a matter of law that the debate was a nonpublic forum, and the issue became whether Forbes’ views were the reason for his exclusion. At trial, AETC professional staff testified Forbes was excluded because he lacked any campaign organization, had not generated appreciable voter support, and was not regarded as a serious candidate by the press covering the election. The jury made express findings that AETC’s decision to ex-elude Forbes had not been influenced by political pressure or disagreement with his views. The District Court entered judgment for AETC.
The Court of Appeals again reversed. The court acknowledged that AETC’s decision to exclude Forbes “was made in good faith” and was “exactly the kind of journalistic judgment routinely made by newspeople.” 93 F. 3d 497, 505 (CA8 1996). The court asserted, nevertheless, that AETC had “opened its facilities to a particular group — candidates running for the Third District Congressional seat.” Id., at 504. AETC’s action, the court held, made the debate a public forum, to which all candidates “legally qualified to appear on the ballot” had a presumptive right of access. Ibid. Applying strict scrutiny, the court determined that AETC’s assessment of Forbes’ “political viability” was neither a “compelling nor [a] narrowly tailored” reason for excluding him from the debate. Id., at 504-505.
A conflict with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Chandler v. Georgia Public Telecommunications Comm’n, 917 F. 2d 486 (1990), cert. denied, 502 U. S. 816 (1991), together with the manifest importance of the case, led us to grant certiorari. 520 U. S. 1114 (1997). We now reverse.
II
Forbes has long since abandoned his statutory claims under 47 U. S. C. § 315, and so the issue is whether his exclusion from the debate was consistent with the First Amendment. The Court of Appeals held it was not, applying our public forum precedents. Appearing as amicus curiae in support of petitioner, the United States argues that our forum precedents should be of little relevance in the context of television broadcasting. At the outset, then, it is instructive to ask whether public forum principles apply to the case at all.
Having first arisen in the context of streets and parks, the public forum doctrine should not be extended in a mechanical way to the very different context of public television broadcasting. In the case of streets and parks, the open access and viewpoint neutrality commanded by the doctrine is “compatible with the intended purpose of the property.” Perry Ed. Assn. v. Perry Local Educators’ Assn., 460 U. S. 37, 49 (1983). So too was the requirement of viewpoint neutrality compatible with the university’s funding of student publications in Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819 (1995). In the ease of television broadcasting, however, broad rights of access for outside speakers would be antithetical, as a general rule, to the discretion that stations and their editorial staff must exercise to fulfill their journalistic purpose and statutory obligations.
Congress has rejected the argument that “broadcast facilities should be open on a nonseleetive basis to all persons wishing to talk about publie issues.” Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U. S. 94, 105 (1973). Instead, television broadcasters enjoy the “widest journalistic freedom” consistent with their public responsibilities. Id., at 110; FCC v. League of Women Voters of Cal., 468 U. S. 364, 378 (1984). Among the broadcaster’s responsibilities is the duty to schedule programming that serves the “public interest, convenience, and necessity.” 47 U. S. C. § 309(a). Public and private broadcasters alike are not only permitted, but indeed required, to exercise substantial editorial discretion in the selection and presentation of their programming.
As a general rule, the nature of editorial discretion counsels against subjecting broadcasters to claims of viewpoint discrimination. Programming decisions would be particularly vulnerable to claims of this type because even principled exclusions rooted in sound journalistic judgment can often be characterized as viewpoint based. To comply with their obligation to air programming that serves the public interest, broadcasters must often choose among speakers expressing different viewpoints. “That editors — newspaper or broadcast — can and do abuse this power is beyond doubt,” Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 412 U. S., at 124; but “Calculated risks of abuse are taken in order to preserve higher values.” Id., at 125. Much like a university selecting a commencement speaker, a public institution selecting speakers for a lecture series, or a public school prescribing its curriculum, a broadcaster by its nature will facilitate the expression of some viewpoints instead of others. Were the judiciary to require, and so to define and approve, pre-established criteria for access, it would risk implicating the courts in judgments that should be left to the exercise of journalistic discretion.
When a public broadcaster exercises editorial discretion in the selection and presentation of its programming, it engages in speech activity. Cf. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U. S. 622, 636 (1994) (“Through ‘original programming or by exercising editorial discretion over which stations or programs to include in its repertoire/ cable programmers and operators ‘see[k] to communicate messages on a wide variety of topics and in a. wide variety of formats’ ”) (quoting Los Angeles v. Preferred Communications, Inc., 476 U. S. 488, 494 (1986)). Although programming decisions often involve the compilation of the speech of third parties, the decisions nonetheless constitute communicative acts. See Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U. S. 557, 570 (1995) (a speaker need not “generate, as an original matter, each item featured in the communication”).
Claims of access under our public forum precedents could obstruct the legitimate purposes of television broadcasters. Were the doctrine given sweeping application in this context, courts “would be required to oversee far more of the day-today operations of broadcasters’ conduct, deciding such questions as whether a particular individual or group has had sufficient opportunity to present its viewpoint and whether a particular viewpoint has already been sufficiently aired.” Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., supra, at 127. “The result would be a further erosion of the journalistic discretion of broadcasters,” transferring “control over the treatment of public issues from the licensees who are accountable for broadcast performance to private individuals” who bring suit under our forum precedents. 412 U. S., at 124. In effect, we would “exchange ‘public trustee’ broadcasting, with all its limitations, for a system of self-appointed editorial commentators.” Id., at 125.
In the absence of any congressional command to “[r]egi-men[t] broadcasters” in this manner, id., at 127, we are disinclined to do so through doctrines of our own design. This is not to say the First Amendment would bar the legislative imposition of neutral rules for access to public broadcasting. Instead, we say that, in most eases, the First Amendment of its own force does not compel public broadcasters to allow third parties access to their programming.
Although public broadcasting as a general matter does not lend itself to scrutiny under the forum doctrine, candidate debates present the narrow exception to the rule. For two reasons, a candidate debate like the one at issue here is different from other programming. First, unlike AETC’s other broadcasts, the debate was by design a forum for political speech by the candidates. Consistent with the long tradition of candidate debates, the implicit representation of the broadcaster was that the views expressed were those of the candidates, not its own. The very purpose of the debate was to allow the candidates to express their views with minimal intrusion by the broadcaster. In this respect the debate differed even from a political talk show, whose host can express partisan views and then limit the discussion to those ideas.
Second, in our tradition, candidate debates are of exceptional significance in the electoral process. “[I]t is of particular importance that candidates have the ... opportunity to make their views known so that the electorate may intelligently evaluate the candidates’ personal qualities and their positions on vital public issues before choosing among them on election day.” CBS, Inc. v. FCC, 453 U. S. 367, 396 (1981) (internal quotation marks omitted). Deliberation on the positions and qualifications of candidates is integral to our system of government, and electoral speech may have its most profound and widespread impact when it is disseminated through televised debates. A majority of the population cites television as its primary source of election information, and debates are regarded as the “only occasion during a campaign when the attention of a large portion of the American public is focused on the election, as well as the only campaign information format which potentially offers sufficient time to explore issues and policies in depth in a neutral forum.” Congressional Research Service, Campaign Debates in Presidential General Elections, summ. (June 15, 1993).
As we later discuss, in many eases it is not feasible for the broadcaster to allow unlimited access to a candidate debate. Yet the requirement of neutrality remains; a broadcaster cannot grant or deny access to a candidate debate on the basis of whether it agrees with a candidate’s views. Viewpoint discrimination in this context would present not a “[ejaleulated ris[k],” Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., supra, at 125, but an inevitability of skewing the electoral dialogue.
The special characteristics of candidate debates support the conclusion that the AETC debate was a forum of some type. The question of what type must be answered by reference to our public forum precedents, to which we now turn.
III
Forbes argues, and the Court of Appeals held, that the debate was a public forum to which he had a First Amendment right of access. Under our precedents, however, the debate was a nonpublic forum, from which AETC could exclude Forbes in the reasonable, viewpoint-neutral exercise of its journalistic discretion.
A
For our purposes, it will suffice to employ the categories of speech fora already established and discussed in our eases. “[T]he Court [has] identified three types of fora: the traditional public forum, the public forum created by government designation, and the nonpublic forum.” Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund, Inc., 473 U. S. 788, 802 (1985). Traditional public fora are defined by the objective characteristics of the property, such as whether, “by long tradition or by government fiat,” the property has been “devoted to assembly and debate.” Perry Ed. Assn., 460 U. S., at 45. The government can exclude a speaker from a traditional public forum “only when the exclusion is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and the exclusion is narrowly drawn to achieve that interest.” Cornelius, supra, at 800.
Designated public fora, in contrast, are created by purposeful governmental action. “The government does not create a [designated] public forum by inaction or by permitting limited discourse, but only by intentionally opening a nontraditional public forum for public discourse.” 473 U. S., at 802; accord, International Soc. for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, 505 U. S. 672, 678 (1992) (ISKCON) (designated public forum is “property that the State has opened for expressive activity by part or all of the public”). Hence “the Court has looked to the policy and practice of the government to ascertain whether it intended to designate a place not traditionally open to assembly and debate as a public forum.” Cornelius, 473 U. S., at 802. If the government excludes a speaker who falls within the class to which a designated public forum is made generally available, its action is subject to strict scrutiny. Ibid.; United States v. Kokinda, 497 U. S. 720, 726-727 (1990) (plurality opinion of O’Connor, J.).
Other government properties are either nonpublic fora or not fora at all. ISKCON, supra, at 678-679. The government can restrict access to a nonpublie forum “as long as the restrictions are reasonable and [are] not an effort to suppress expression merely because public officials oppose the speaker’s view.” Cornelius, supra, at 800 (internal quotation marks omitted).
In summary, traditional public fora are open for expressive activity regardless of the government’s intent. The objective characteristics of these properties require the government to accommodate private speakers. The government is free to open additional properties for expressive use by the general public or by a particular class of speakers, thereby creating designated public fora. Where the property is not a traditional public forum and the government has not chosen to create a designated public forum, the property is either a nonpublic forum or not a forum at all.
B
The parties agree the AETC debate was not a traditional public forum. The Court has rejected the view that traditional public forum status' extends beyond its historic confines, see ISKCON, 505 U. S., at 680-681; and even had a more expansive conception of traditional public fora been adopted, see, e. g., id., at 698-699 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgments), the almost unfettered access of a traditional public forum would be incompatible with the programming dictates a television broadcaster must follow. See supra, at 673-675. The issue, then, is whether the debate was a designated public forum or a nonpublic forum.
Under our precedents, the AETC debate was not a designated public forum. To create a forum of this type, the government must intend to make the property “generally available,” Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U. S. 263, 264 (1981), to a class of speakers. Accord, Cornelius, supra, at 802. In Widmar, for example, a state university created a public forum for registered student groups by implementing a policy that expressly made its meeting facilities “generally open” to such-groups. 454 U. S., at 267; aeeord, Perry, supra, at 45 (designated public forum is “generally open”). A designated public forum is not created when the government allows selective access for individual speakers rather than general access for a class of speakers. In Perry, for example, the Court held a school district’s internal mail system was not a designated public forum even though selected speakers were able to gain access to it. The basis for the holding in Perry was explained by the Court in Cornelius:
“In contrast to the general access policy in Widmar, school board policy did not grant general access to the school mail system. The practice was to require permission from the individual school principal before access to the system to communicate with teachers was granted.” 473 U. S., at 803.
And in Cornelius itself, the Court held the Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) charity drive was not a designated public forum because “[t]he Government’s consistent policy ha[d] been to limit participation in the CFC to ‘appropriate’ [i. e., charitable rather than political] voluntary agencies and to require agencies seeking admission to obtain permission from federal and local Campaign officials.” Id., at 804.
These eases illustrate the distinction between “general access,” id., at 803, which indicates the property is a designated public forum, and “selective access,” id., at 805, which indicates the property is a nonpublie forum. On one hand, the government creates a designated public forum when it makes its property generally available to a certain class of speakers, as the university made its facilities generally available to student groups in Widmar. On the other hand, the government does not create a designated public forum when it does no more than reserve eligibility for access to the forum to a particular class of speakers, whose members must then, as individuals, “obtain permission,” 473 U. S., at 804, to use it. For instance, the Federal Government did not create a designated public forum in Cornelius when it reserved eligibility for participation in the CFC drive to charitable agencies, and then made individual, non-ministerial judgments as to which of the eligible agencies would participate. Ibid.
The Cornelius distinction between general and selective access furthers First Amendment interests. By recognizing the distinction, we encourage the government to open its property to some expressive activity in cases where, if faced with an all-or-nothing choice, it might not open the property at all. That this distinction turns on governmental intent does not render it unprotective of speech. Rather, it reflects the reality that, with the exception of traditional public fora, the government retains the choice of whether to designate its property as a forum for specified classes of speakers.
Here, the debate did not have an open-microphone format. Contrary to the assertion of the Court of Appeals, AETC did not make its debate generally available to candidates for Arkansas’ Third Congressional District seat. Instead, just as the Federal Government in Cornelius reserved eligibility for participation in the CFC program to certain classes of voluntary agencies, AETC reserved eligibility for participation in the debate to candidates for the Third Congressional District seat (as opposed to some other seat). At that point, just as the Government in Cornelius made agency-by-agency determinations as to which of the eligible agencies would participate in the CFC, AETC made candidate-by-eandidate determinations as to which of the eligible candidates would participate in the debate. “Such selective access, unsupported by evidence of a purposeful designation for public use, does not create a public forum.” Id., at 805. Thus the debate was a nonpublic forum.
In addition to being a misapplication of our precedents, the Court of Appeals’ holding would result in less speech, not more. In ruling that the debate was a public forum open to all ballot-qualified candidates, 93 F. 3d, at 504, the Court of Appeals would place a severe burden upon public broadcasters who air candidates’ views. In each of the 1988, 1992, and 1996 Presidential elections, for example, no fewer than 19 candidates appeared on the ballot in at least one State. See Twentieth Century Fund Task Force on Presidential Debates, Let America Decide 148 (1995); Federal Election Commission, Federal Elections 92, p. 9 (1993); Federal Election Commission, Federal Elections 96, p. 11 (1997). In the 1996 congressional elections, it was common for 6 to 11 candidates to qualify for the ballot for a particular seat. See 1996 Election Results, 54 Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report 3250-3257 (1996). In the 1993 New Jersey gubernatorial election, to illustrate further, sample ballot mailings included the written statements of 19 candidates. See N. Y. Times, Sept. 11,1993, section 1, p. 26, col. 5. On logistical grounds alone, a public television editor might, with reason, decide that the inclusion of all ballot-qualified candidates would “actually undermine the educational value and quality of debates.” Let America Decide, supra, at 148.
Were it faced with the prospect of cacophony, on the one hand, and First Amendment liability, on the other, a public television broadcaster might choose not to air candidates’ views at all. A broadcaster might decide “ The safe course is to avoid controversy,’ . . . and by so doing diminish the free flow of information and ideas.” Turner Broadcasting System, Inc., 512 U. S., at 656 (quoting Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U. S. 241, 257 (1974)). In this circumstance, a “[g]overnment-enforced right of access inescapably ‘dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate.’” Ibid. (quoting New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 279 (1964)).
These concerns are more than speculative. As a direct result of the Court of Appeals’ decision in this case, the Nebraska Educational Television Network canceled a scheduled debate between candidates in Nebraska’s 1996 United States Senate race. See Lincoln Journal Star, Aug. 24,1996, p. 1A, col. 6. A First Amendment jurisprudence yielding these results does not promote speech but represses it.
C
The debate’s status as a nonpublie forum, however, did not give AETC unfettered power to exclude any candidate it wished. As Justice O’Connor has observed, nonpublic forum status “does not mean that the government can restrict speech in whatever way it likes.” ISKCON, 505 U. S., at 687. To be consistent with the First Amendment, the exclusion of a speaker from a nonpublie forum must not be based on the speaker’s viewpoint and must otherwise be reasonable in light of the purpose of the property. Cornelius, 473 U. S., at 800.
In this case, the jury found Forbes’ exclusion was not based on “objections or opposition to his views.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 23a. The record provides' ample support for this finding, demonstrating as well that AETC’s decision to exclude him was reasonable. AETC Executive Director Susan Howarth testified Forbes’ views had “absolutely” no role in the decision to exclude him from the debate. App. 142. She further testified Forbes was excluded because (1) “the Arkansas votei-s did not consider him a serious candidate”; (2) “the news organizations also did not consider him a serious candidate”; (3) “the Associated Press and a national election result reporting service did not plan to run his name in results on election night”; (4) Forbes “apparently had little, if any, financial support, failing to report campaign finances to the Secretary of State’s office or to the Federal Election Commission”; and (5) “there [was] no ‘Forbes for Congress’ campaign headquarters other than his house.” Id., at 126-127. Forbes himself described his campaign organization as “bedlam” and the media coverage of his campaign as “zilch.” Id., at 91, 96. It is, in short, beyond dispute that Forbes was excluded not because of his viewpoint but because he had generated no appreciable public interest. Cf. Perry, 460 U. S., at 49 (exclusion from nonpublic forum “based on the status” rather than the views of the speaker is permissible (emphasis in original)).
There is no substance to Forbes’ suggestion that he was excluded because his views were unpopular or out of the mainstream. His own objective lack of support, not his platform, was the criterion. Indeed, the very premise of Forbes’ contention is mistaken. A candidate with unconventional views might well enjoy broad support by virtue of a compelling personality or an exemplary campaign organization. By the same token, a candidate with a traditional platform might enjoy little support due to an inept campaign or any number of other reasons.
Nor did AETC exclude Forbes in an attempted manipulation of the political process. The evidence provided powerful support for the jury’s express finding that AETC’s exclusion of Forbes was not the result of “political pressure from anyone inside or outside [AETC].” App. to Pet. for Cert. 22a. There is no serious argument that AETC did not act in good faith in this case. AETC excluded Forbes because the voters lacked interest in his candidacy, not because AETC itself did.
The broadcaster’s decision to exclude Forbes was a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral exercise of journalistic discretion consistent with the First Amendment. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The respondents in No. 72-777 and the petitioner in No. 72-1129 are female public school teachers. During the 1970-1971 school year, each informed her local school board that she was pregnant; each was compelled by a mandatory maternity leave rule to quit her job without pay several months before the expected birth of her child. These cases call upon us to decide the constitutionality of the school boards’ rules.
I
Jo Carol LaFleur and Ann Elizabeth Nelson, the respondents in No. 72-777, are junior high school teachers employed by the Board of Education of Cleveland, Ohio. Pursuant to a rule first adopted in 1952, the school board requires every pregnant school teacher to take maternity leave without pay, beginning five months before the expected birth of her child. Application for such leave must be made no later than two weeks prior to the date of departure. A teacher on maternity leave is not allowed to return to work until the beginning of the next regular school semester which follows the date when her child attains the age of three months. A doctor’s certificate attesting to the health of the teacher is a prerequisite to return; an additional physical examination may be required. The teacher on maternity leave is not promised re-employment after the birth of the child; she is merely given priority in reassignment to a position for which she is qualified. Failure to comply with the mandatory maternity leave provisions is ground for dismissal.
Neither Mrs. LaFleur nor Mrs. Nelson wished to take an unpaid maternity leave; each wanted to continue teaching until the end of the school year. Because of the mandatory maternity leave rule, however, each was required to leave her job in March 1971. The two women then filed separate suits in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, challenging the constitutionality of the maternity leave rule. The District Court tried the cases together, and rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments. 326 F. Supp. 1208. A divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, finding the Cleveland rule in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 465 F. 2d 1184.
The petitioner in No. 72-1129, Susan Cohen, was employed by the School Board of Chesterfield County, Virginia. That school board’s maternity leave regulation requires that a pregnant teacher leave work at least four months prior to the expected birth of her child. Notice in writing must be given to the school board at least six months prior to the expected birth date. A teacher on maternity leave is declared re-eligible for employment when she submits written notice from a physician that she is physically fit for re-employment, and when she can give assurance that care of the child will cause only minimal interference with her job responsibilities. The teacher is guaranteed re-employment no later than the first day of the school year following the date upon which she is declared re-eligible.
Mrs. Cohen informed the Chesterfield County School Board in November 1970, that she was pregnant and expected the birth of her child about April 28, 1971. She initially requested that she be permitted to continue teaching until April 1, 1971. The school board rejected the request, as it did Mrs. Cohen’s subsequent suggestion that she be allowed to teach until January 21, 1971, the end of the first school semester. Instead, she was required to leave her teaching job on December 18, 1970. She subsequently filed this suit under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The District Court held that the school board regulation violates the Equal Protection Clause, and granted appropriate relief. 326 F. Supp. 1159. A divided panel of the Fourth Circuit affirmed, but, on rehearing en banc, the Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the challenged regulation in a A-3 decision. 474 F. 2d 395.
We granted certiorari in both cases, 411 U. S. 947, in order to resolve the conflict between the Courts of Appeals regarding the constitutionality of such mandatory maternity leave rules for public school teachers.
II
This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113; Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, 12; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479; Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510; Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390. See also Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158; Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535. As we noted in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453, there is a right “to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.”
By acting to penalize the pregnant teacher for deciding to bear a child, overly restrictive maternity leave regulations can constitute a heavy burden on the exercise of these protected freedoms. Because public school maternity leave rules directly affect “one of the basic civil rights of man,” Skinner v. Oklahoma, supra, at 541, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that such rules must not needlessly, arbitrarily, or capriciously impinge upon this vital area of a teacher’s constitutional liberty. The question before us in these cases is whether the interests advanced in support of the rules of the Cleveland and Chesterfield County School Boards can justify the particular procedures they have adopted.
The school boards in these cases have offered two essentially overlapping explanations for their mandatory maternity leave rules. First, they contend that the firm cutoff dates are necessary to maintain continuity of classroom instruction, since advance knowledge of when a pregnant teacher must leave facilitates the finding and hiring of a qualified substitute. Secondly, the school boards seek to justify their maternity rules by arguing that at least some teachers become physically incapable of adequately performing certain of their duties during the latter part of pregnancy. By keeping the pregnant teacher out of the classroom during these final months, the maternity leave rules are said to protect the health of the teacher and her unborn child, while at the same time assuring that students have a physically capable instructor in the classroom at all times.
It cannot be denied that continuity of instruction is a significant and legitimate educational goal. Regulations requiring pregnant teachers to provide early notice of their condition to school authorities undoubtedly facilitate administrative planning toward the important objective of continuity. But, as the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit noted in Green v. Waterford Board of Education, 473 F. 2d 629, 635:
“Where a pregnant teacher provides the Board with a date certain for commencement of leave . . . that value [continuity] is preserved; an arbitrary leave date set at the end of the fifth month is no more calculated to facilitate a planned and orderly transition between the teacher and a substitute than is a date fixed closer to confinement. Indeed, the latter . . . would afford the Board more, not less, time to procure a satisfactory long-term substitute.” (Footnote omitted.)
Thus, while the advance-notice provisions in the Cleveland and Chesterfield County rules are wholly rational and may well be necessary to serve the objective of continuity of instruction, the absolute requirements of termination at the end of the fourth or fifth month of pregnancy are not. Were continuity the only goal, cutoff dates much later during pregnancy would serve as well as or better than the challenged rules, providing that ample advance notice requirements were retained. Indeed, continuity would seem just as well attained if the teacher herself were allowed to choose the date upon which to commence her leave, at least so long as the decision were required to be made and notice given of it well in advance of the date selected.
In fact, since the fifth or sixth month of pregnancy will obviously begin at different times in the school year for different teachers, the present Cleveland and Chesterfield County rules may serve to hinder attainment of the very continuity objectives that they are purportedly designed to promote. For example, the beginning of the fifth month of pregnancy for both Mrs. LaFleur and Mrs. Nelson occurred during March of 1971. Both were thus required to leave work with only a few months left in the school year, even though both were fully willing to serve through the end of the term. Similarly, if continuity were the only goal, it seems ironic that the Chesterfield County rule forced Mrs. Cohen to leave work in mid-December 1970 rather than at the end of the semester in January, as she requested.
We thus conclude that the arbitrary cutoff dates embodied in the mandatory leave rules before us have no rational relationship to the valid state' interest of preserving continuity of instruction. As long as the teachers are required to give substantial advance notice of their condition, the choice of firm dates later in pregnancy would serve the boards’ objectives just as well, while imposing a far lesser burden on the women’s exercise of constitutionally protected freedom.
The question remains as to whether the cutoff dates at the beginning of the fifth and sixth months can be justified on the other ground advanced by the school boards — the necessity of keeping physically unfit teachers out of the classroom. There can be no doubt that such an objective is perfectly legitimate, both on educational and safety grounds. And, despite the plethora of conflicting medical testimony in these cases, we can assume, arguendo, that at least some teachers become physically disabled from effectively performing their duties during the latter stages of pregnancy.
The mandatory termination provisions of the Cleveland and Chesterfield County rules surely operate to insulate the classroom from the presence of potentially incapacitated pregnant teachers. But the question is whether the rules sweep too broadly. See Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U. S. 479. That question must be answered in the affirmative, for the provisions amount to a conclusive presumption that every pregnant teacher who reaches the fifth or sixth month of pregnancy is physically incapable of continuing. There is no individualized determination by the teacher’s doctor — or the school board’s — as to any particular teacher’s ability to continue at her job. The rules contain an irrebuttable presumption of physical incompetency, and that presumption applies even when the medical evidence as to an individual woman’s physical status might be wholly to the contrary.
As the Court noted last Term in Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U. S. 441, 446, “permanent irrebuttable presumptions have long been disfavored under the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.” In Vlandis, the Court declared unconstitutional, under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a Connecticut statute mandating an irrebuttable presumption of non-residency for the purposes of qualifying for reduced tuition rates at a state university. We said in that case, id., at 452:
“[I]t is forbidden by the Due Process Clause to deny an individual the resident rates on the basis of a permanent and irrebuttable presumption of non-residence, when that presumption is not necessarily or universally true in fact, and when the State has reasonable alternative means of making the crucial determination.”
Similarly, in Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 645, the Court held that an Illinois statute containing an irrebut-table presumption that unmarried fathers are incompetent to raise their children violated the Due Process Clause. Because of the statutory presumption, the State took custody of all illegitimate children upon the death of the mother, without allowing the father to attempt to prove his parental fitness. As the Court put the matter:
“It may be, as the State insists, that most unmarried fathers are unsuitable and neglectful parents. It may also be that Stanley is such a parent and that his children should be placed in other hands. But all unmarried fathers are not in this category; some are wholly suited to have custody of their children.” Id., at 654 (footnotes omitted).
Hence, we held that the State could not conclusively presume that any particular unmarried father was unfit to raise his child; the Due Process Clause required a more individualized determination. See also United States Dept. of Agriculture v. Murry, 413 U. S. 508; id., at 514-517 (concurring opinion); Bell v. Burson, 402 U. S. 535; Carrington v. Rash, 380 U. S. 89.
These principles control our decision in the cases before us. While the medical experts in these cases differed on many points, they unanimously agreed on one — the ability of any particular pregnant woman to continue at work past any fixed time in her pregnancy is very much an individual matter. Even assuming, arguendo, that there are some women who would be physically unable to work past the particular cutoff dates embodied in the challenged rules, it is evident that there are large numbers of teachers who are fully capable of continuing work for longer than the Cleveland and Chesterfield County regulations will allow. Thus, the conclusive presumption embodied in these rules, like that in Vlandis, is neither “necessarily [nor] universally true,” and is viola-tive of the Due Process Clause.
The school boards have argued that the mandatory termination dates serve the interest of administrative convenience, since there are many instances of teacher pregnancy, and the rules obviate the necessity for case-by-case determinations. Certainly, the boards have an interest in devising prompt and efficient procedures to achieve their legitimate objectives in this area. But, as the Court stated in Stanley v. Illinois, supra, at 656:
“[T]he Constitution recognizes higher values than speed and efficiency. Indeed, one might fairly say of the Bill of Rights in general, and the Due Process Clause in particular, that they were designed to protect the fragile values of a vulnerable citizenry from the overbearing concern for efficiency and efficacy that may characterize praiseworthy government officials no less, and perhaps more, than mediocre ones.” (Footnote omitted.)
While it might be easier for the school boards to conclusively presume that all pregnant women are unfit to teach past the fourth or fifth month or even the first month, of pregnancy, administrative convenience alone is insufficient to make valid what otherwise is a violation of due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires the school boards to employ alternative administrative means, which do not so broadly infringe upon basic constitutional liberty, in support of their legitimate goals.
We conclude, therefore, that neither the necessity for continuity of instruction nor the state interest in keeping physically unfit teachers out of the classroom can justify the sweeping mandatory leave regulations that the Cleveland and Chesterfield County School Boards have adopted. While the regulations no doubt represent a good-faith attempt to achieve a laudable goal, they cannot pass muster under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because they employ irrebuttable presumptions that unduly penalize a female teacher for deciding to bear a child.
Ill
In addition to the mandatory termination provisions, both the Cleveland and Chesterfield County rules contain limitations upon a teacher’s eligibility to return to work after giving birth. Again, the school boards offer two justifications for the return rules — continuity of instruction and the desire to be certain that the teacher is physically competent when she returns to work. As is the case with the leave provisions, the question is not whether the school board’s goals are legitimate, but rather whether the particular means chosen to achieve those objectives unduly infringe upon the teacher’s constitutional liberty.
Under the Cleveland rule, the teacher is not eligible to return to work until the beginning of the next regular school semester following the time when her child attains the age of three months. A doctor’s certificate attesting to the teacher’s health is required before return; an additional physical examination may be required at the option of the school board.
The respondents in No. 72-777 do not seriously challenge either the medical requirements of the Cleveland rule or the policy of limiting eligibility to return to the next semester following birth. The provisions concerning a medical certificate or supplemental physical examination are narrowly drawn methods of protecting the school board’s interest in teacher fitness; these requirements allow an individualized decision as to the teacher’s condition, and thus avoid the pitfalls of the presumptions inherent in the leave rules. Similarly, the provision limiting eligibility to return to the semester following delivery is a precisely drawn means of serving the school board’s interest in avoiding unnecessary changes in classroom personnel during any one school term.
The Cleveland rule, however, does not simply contain these reasonable medical and next-semester eligibility provisions. In addition, the school board requires the mother to wait until her child reaches the age of three months before the return rules begin to operate. The school board has offered no reasonable justification for this supplemental limitation, and we can perceive none. To the extent that the three-month provision reflects the school board’s thinking that no mother is fit to return until that point in time, it suffers from the same constitutional deficiencies that plague the irrebuttable presumption in the termination rules. The presumption, moreover, is patently unnecessary, since the requirement of a physician’s certificate or a medical examination fully protects the school’s interests in this regard. And finally, the three-month provision simply has nothing to do with continuity of instruction, since the precise point at which the child will reach the relevant age will obviously occur at a different point throughout the school year for each teacher.
Thus, we conclude that the Cleveland return rule, insofar as it embodies the three-month age provision, is wholly arbitrary and irrational, and hence violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The age limitation serves no legitimate state interest, and unnecessarily penalizes the female teacher for asserting her right to bear children.
We perceive no such constitutional infirmities in the Chesterfield County rule. In that school system, the teacher becomes eligible for re-employment upon submission of a medical certificate from her physician; return to work is guaranteed no later than the beginning of the next school year following the eligibility determination. The medical certificate is both a reasonable and narrow method of protecting the school board’s interest in teacher fitness, while the possible deferring of return until the next school year serves the goal of preserving continuity of instruction. In short, the Chesterfield County rule manages to serve the legitimate state interests here without employing unnecessary presumptions that broadly burden the exercise of protected constitutional liberty.
IY
For the reasons stated, we hold that the mandatory termination provisions of the Cleveland and Chesterfield County maternity regulations violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because of their use of unwarranted conclusive presumptions that seriously burden the exercise of protected constitutional liberty. For similar reasons, we hold the three-month provision of the Cleveland return rule unconstitutional.
Accordingly, the judgment in No. 72-777 is affirmed; the judgment in No. 72-1129 is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Douglas concurs in the result.
The Cleveland rule provides:
“Any married teacher who becomes pregnant and who desires to return to the employ of the Board at a future date may be granted a maternity leave of absence without pay.
“APPLICATION A maternity leave of absence shall be effective not less than five (5) months before the expected date of the normal birth of the child. Application for such leave shall be forwarded to the Superintendent at least two (2) weeks before the effective date of the leave of absence. A leave of absence without pay shall be granted by the Superintendent for a period not to exceed two (2) years.
“REASSIGNMENT A teacher may return to service from maternity leaves not earlier than the beginning of the regular school semester which follows the child’s age of three (8) months. In unusual circumstances, exceptions to this requirement may be made by the Superintendent with the approval of the Board. Written request for return to service from maternity leave must reach the Superintendent at least six (6) weeks prior to the beginning of the semester when the teacher expects to resume teaching and shall be accompanied by a doctor’s certificate stating the health and physical condition of the teacher. The Superintendent may require an additional physical examination.
“When- a teacher qualifies to return from maternity leave, she shall have priority in reassignment to a vacancy for which she is qualified under her certificate, but she shall not have prior claim to the exact position she held before the leave of absence became effective.
“A teacher’s failure to follow the above rules for maternity leave of absence shall be construed as termination of contract or as grounds for dismissal.” (Emphasis in original.)
Mrs. LaFleur’s child was born on July 28, 1971; Mrs. Nelson’s child was bom during August of that year.
Effective February 1, 1971, the Cleveland regulation was amended to provide that only teachers with one year of continuous service qualified for maternity leave; teachers with less than one year were required to resign at the beginning of the fifth month of pregnancy. Since Mrs. Nelson had less than a year of service at the time she notified her principal that she was pregnant, the school board originally required her to resign her teaching position. The school board has since conceded that the February 1 amendment did not apply to Mrs. Nelson, since it was enacted after her contract of employment was executed. Pursuant to that concession, the board has placed Mrs. Nelson, like Mrs. LaFleur, on mandatory leave.
Chief Judge Phillips filed a separate opinion, dissenting in part and concurring in part. He felt that the portion of the challenged regulation requiring maternity leave at the beginning of the fifth month of pregnancy was constitutional; he agreed with the majority, however, that the three-month post-delivery waiting period before becoming eligible to return to teaching was unconstitutional.
The Chesterfield County rule provides:
“MATERNITY PROVISIONS
“a. Notice in writing must be given to the School Board at least six (6) months prior to the date of expected birth.
“b. Termination of employment of an expectant mother shall become effective at least four (4) months prior to the expected birth of the child. Termination of employment may be extended if the superintendent receives written recommendations from the expectant mother’s physician and her principal, and if the superintendent feels that an extension will be in the best interest of the pupils and school involved.
“c. Maternity Leave
“(1) Maternity leave must be requested in writing at the time of termination of employment.
“(2) Maternity leave will be granted only to those persons who have a record of satisfactory performance.
“(3) An individual will be declared eligible for re-employment when she submits written notice from her physician that she is physically fit for full-time employment and when she can give full assurance that care of the child will cause minimal interference with job responsibilities.
“(4) Re-employment will be guaranteed no later than the first day of the school year following the date that the individual was declared eligible for re-employment.
“(5) All personnel benefits accrued, including seniority, will be retained during maternity leave unless the person concerned shall have accepted other employment.
“(6) The school system will have discharged its responsibility under this policy after offering re-employment for the first vacancy that occurs after the individual has been declared eligible for re-employment.”
Mrs. Cohen’s child was in fact bom on May 2.
Unlike the Cleveland rule, n. 1, supra, the Chesterfield County regulation allows the superintendent of schools to extend a teacher’s employment beyond the normal cutoff date, if he determines that such action is in the best interests of the students and school involved. See n. 5, supra.
Apart from the cases here under review, there are at least three other reported federal appellate opinions dealing with the constitutionality of mandatory maternity leave regulations. Compare Green v. Waterford Board of Education, 473 F. 2d 629 (CA2), and Buckley v. Coyle Public School System, 476 F. 2d 92 (CA10) (both invalidating mandatory leave rules for pregnant public school teachers) with Schattman v. Texas Employment Comm’n, 459 F. 2d 32 (CA5) (upholding a leave policy of a state agency).
For opinions of the district courts dealing with mandatory maternity leaves, see, e. g., Heath v. Westerville Board of Education, 345 F. Supp. 501 (SD Ohio); Pocklington v. Duval County School Board, 345 F. Supp. 163 (MD Fla.); Bravo v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, 345 F. Supp. 155 (ND Ill.); Williams v. San Francisco Unified School District, 340 F. Supp. 438 (ND Cal.); Seaman v. Spring Lake Park Independent School District, 363 F. Supp. 944 (Minn.); Monell v. Department of Social Services, 357 F. Supp. 1051 (SDNY).
Cf. Struck v. Secretary of Defense, 460 F. 2d 1372 (CA9), vacated and remanded to consider the issue of mootness, 409 U. S. 1071; Gutierrez v. Laird, 346 F. Supp. 289 (DC); Robinson v. Rand, 340 F. Supp. 37 (Colo.) (all dealing with Air Force regulations requiring separation of pregnant personnel).
The practical impact of our decision in the present cases may have been somewhat lessened by several recent developments. At the time that the teachers in these cases were placed on maternity leave, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seq., did not apply to state agencies and educational institutions. 42 U. S. C. §§ 2000e (b) and 2000e-1. On March 24, 1972, however, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 amended Title VII to withdraw those exemptions. Pub. L. 92-261, 86 Stat. 103. Shortly thereafter, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission promulgated guidelines providing that a mandatory leave or termination policy for pregnant women presumptively violates Title VII. 29 CFR § 1604.10, 37 Fed. Reg. 6837. While the statutory amendments and the administrative regulations are, of course, inapplicable to the cases now before us, they will affect like suits in the future.
In addition, a number of other federal agencies have promulgated regulations similar to those of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, forbidding discrimination against pregnant workers with regard to sick leave policies. See, e. g., 5 CFR § 630.401 (b) (Civil Service Commission); 41 CFR § 60-20.3 (g) (Office of Federal Contract Compliance). See generally Koontz, Childbirth and Child Rearing Leave: Job-Related Benefits, 17 N. Y. L. F. 480, 487-490; Comment, Love’s Labors Lost: New Conceptions of Maternity Leaves, 7 Harv. Civ. Rights-Civ. Lib. L. Rev. 260, 280-281. We, of course, express no opinion as to the validity of any of these regulations.
The records in these cases suggest that the maternity leave regulations may have originally been inspired by other, less weighty, considerations. For example, Dr. Mark C. Schinnerer, who served as Superintendent of Schools in Cleveland at the time the leave rule was adopted, testified in the District Court that the rule had been adopted in part to save pregnant teachers from embarrassment at the hands of giggling schoolchildren; the cutoff date at the end of the fourth month was chosen because this was, when the teacher “began to show.” Similarly, at least several members of the Chesterfield County School Board thought a mandatory leave rule was justified in order to insulate schoolchildren from the sight of conspicuously pregnant women. One member of the school board thought that it was “not good for the school system” for students to view pregnant teachers, “because some of the kids say, my teacher swallowed a water melon, things like that.”
The school boards have not contended in this Court that these considerations can serve as a legitimate basis for a rule requiring pregnant women to leave work; we thus note the comments only to illustrate the possible role of outmoded taboos in the adoption of the rules. Cf. Green v. Waterford Board of Education, 473 F. 2d, at 635 (“Whatever may have been the reaction in Queen Victoria's time, pregnancy is no longer a dirty word”).
It is, of course, possible that either premature childbirth or complications in the latter stages of pregnancy might upset even the most careful plans of the teacher, the substitute, and the school board. But there is nothing in these records to indicate that such emergencies could not be handled, as are all others, through the normal use of the emergency substitute teacher process. See Green, supra, at 635-636.
Indeed, it is somewhat difficult to view the Cleveland mandatory leave rule as seriously furthering the goal of continuity, since the rule requires only two weeks’ advance notice before the leave is to commence.
There were three medical witnesses in the Cleveland case: Dr. Sarah Marcus and Dr. Veners Rutenbeigs (Mrs. Nelson’s obstetrician), who testified on behalf of the respondents, and Dr. William C. Weir, the petitioners’ expert. While Dr. Weir generally disagreed with his colleagues on the potential effects of pregnancy on a teacher’s job performance, he noted that each pregnancy was an individual matter, and should be prescribed for as such. Similarly, the two medical experts in the Chesterfield County case, Dr. Leo J. Dunn and Dr. David C. Forrest, testified that each particular pregnancy must be managed as an individual matter. Cf. R. Benson, Handbook of Obstetrics & Gynecology 109 (4th ed. 1971); Curran, Equal Protection of the Law: Pregnant School Teachers, 285 New England J. Medicine 336; Comment, Mandatory Maternity Leave of Absence Policies—An Equal Protection Analysis, 45 Temp. L. Q. 240, 245.
This is not to say that the only means for providing appropriate protection, for the rights of pregnant teachers is an individualized determination in each case and in every circumstance. We are not dealing in these cases with maternity leave regulations requiring a termination of employment at some firm date during the last few weeks of pregnancy. We therefore have no occasion to decide whether such regulations might be justified by considerations not presented in these records — for example, widespread medical consensus about the “disabling” effect of pregnancy on a teacher’s job performance during these latter days, or evidence showing that such firm cutoffs were the only reasonable method of avoiding the possibility of labor beginning while some teacher was in the classroom, or proof that adequate substitutes could not be procured without at least some minimal lead time and certainty as to the dates upon which their employment was to begin.
The school boards have available to them reasonable alternative methods of keeping physically unfit teachers out of the classroom. For example, they could require the pregnant teacher to submit to medical examination by a school board physician, or simply require each teacher to submit a current certification from her obstetrician as to her ability to continue work. Indeed, when evaluating the physical ability of a teacher to return to work, each school board in this ease relies upon precisely such procedures. See nn. 1 and 5, supra; see also text, infra, at 648-650.
It is clear that the factual hypothesis of such a presumption— that no mother is physically fit to return to work until her child reaches the age of three months — is neither necessarily nor universally true. See R. Benson, supra, n. 12, at 209 (patient may return to “full activity or employment” if course of progress up to fourth or fifth week is normal). Cf. Comment, Love’s Labors Lost: New Conceptions of Maternity Leaves, 7 Harv. Civ. Rights-Civ. Lib. L. Rev., at 262 n. 11, 287 n. 145.
Of course, it may be that the Cleveland rule is based upon another theory — that new mothers are too busy with their children within the first three months to allow a return to work. Viewed in that light, the rule remains a conclusive presumption, whose underlying factual assumptions can hardly be said to be universally valid.
The Virginia rule also requires that the teacher give assurance that care of the child will not unduly interfere with her job duties. While such a requirement has within it the potential for abuse, there is no evidence on this record that the assurance required here is anything more than that routinely sought by employers from prospective employees — that the worker is willing to devote full attention to job duties. Nor is there any evidence in this record that the school authorities do not routinely accept the woman’s assurance of her ability to return.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Alaska, while a Territory, enacted a law which levied a tax at the rate of 1 percent on all real and personal property. L. 1949, c. 10, § 3. The tax was challenged in litigation without success. Some paid the tax voluntarily; others became delinquent. In 1953 the tax statute was repealed. L. 1953, c. 22. Thereafter petitioner instituted the present suits to collect taxes owing for the years 1949 to 1952, inclusive. The District Court granted a motion to dismiss, holding that no liability for these taxes had survived the repeal. 137 F. Supp. 181. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 246 F. 2d 493. The case is here by a petition for writ of certiorari which was granted in view of the fiscal importance of the question to Alaska. 356 U. S. 926.
Alaska has a general law, saving rights accrued under a statute that is repealed. The lower courts, however, held that this case was governed not by that provision but by § 2 (a) of the repealing Act which reads as follows:
“Section 1 of this Act shall not be applicable to:
“(a) any taxes which have been levied and assessed by any municipality, school or public utility district under the provisions of Chapter 10, Session Laws of Alaska 1949, as amended, or which are levied and assessed during the current fiscal year of such municipality, school or public utility district.”
It was held that this specific enactment qualifies the general repeal law and that the purpose of the 1953 Act was to wipe out any and all liabilities to pay taxes under the repealed law that had accrued prior to the date of repeal. Support for that conclusion was found in the title of the 1953 Act which includes the words “excepting from repeal certain taxes,” no qualifications whatsoever being indicated.
We take a different view. Section 2 (a) of the 1953 Act, as we read it, has nothing to do with any taxes other than those payable to a municipality, a school or public utility district, none of which is here involved. If it had done no more than save all accrued taxes in those categories, the case would be in quite a different posture. Section 2 (a), however, does not do that. It was protective of municipal, school, or public utility taxes in a much broader way. It saved first, those taxes that had been “levied and assessed” and second, those to be “levied and assessed during the current fiscal year.” This was to make sure, as the dissent below said, that municipalities and school and public utility districts (though not the Territory itself) would have the right to levy and collect the old taxes for the current year 1953, whether before or after the repealing Act had taken effect. So construed, § 2 (a) carves no exception from the general saving statute and does not interfere with the collection of unpaid taxes which accrued prior to repeal.
We are reinforced in this conclusion by the legislative history of the bill that became the repealing Act, a history of which we take judicial notice. See United States v. American Trucking Assns., 310 U. S. 534, 547. And see Wigmore on Evidence (3d ed. 1940) § 2577. The bill as introduced “cancelled, repealed and abrogated, and declared null and void” “all accrued and unpaid taxes” under the 1949 Act. That provision was deleted, however, by a House Committee, and it never became part of the law. The bill passed the House without it. The present § 2 (a) was added in the Senate; and the House agreed. If we adopted the construction taken below, we would be reading into the Act by implication what the Legislature seemingly rejected.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and, as there are other questions which were raised by the appeal (246 F. 2d 493, 495) but not reached by that court, the cause is remanded to it for proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter and Mr. Justice Harlan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
See Mullaney v. Hess, 189 F. 2d 417; Hess v. Mullaney, 213 F. 2d 635.
Alaska Comp. L. Ann., 1949, § 19-1-1, reads as follows:
“The repeal or amendment of any statute shall not affect any offense committed or any act done or right accruing or accrued or any action or proceeding had or commenced prior to such repeal or amendment; nor shall any penalty, forfeiture or liability incurred under such statute be released or extinguished, but the same may be enforced, continued, sustained, prosecuted and punished under the repealing or amendatory statute save as limited by the ex post facto and other provisions of the Constitution, in which event the same may be enforced, continued, sustained, prosecuted and punished under the former law as if such repeal or amendment had not been made.”
Section 1 of the 1953 Act provides:
“That Chapter 10, Session Laws of Alaska, 1949, as amended by Chapter 88, Session Laws of Alaska, 1949, be and it is hereby repealed.”
We refer to the Alaska House and Senate Journals and to the original bill as introduced in the House which is on file with the Secretary of Alaska, a copy being certified by him.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Opinion of the Court by
MR. Justice Black,
announced by Mr. Justice Douglas.
. Respondent, County of Door, Wisconsin, is a municipal corporation; petitioners are a Plumbers’ Union Local and a Council of Trade Unions. The County hired respondent Oudenhoveri to do the general contracting work on an addition to the Door County Courthouse. At the same time some eight contracts covering specific items of construction were entered, into by. the County with various other firms. Among the contractors was respondent Zahn who had successfully bid for the plumbing work in the project. Unlike the other successful bidders, however, Zahn employed nonunion labor. This disturbed the Plumbers’ Union which attempted to induce him to sign a union agreement. After Zahn refused, a picket was assigned to walk around the courthouse carrying a placard which stated that nonunion workers were employed on the project. The picketing, though peaceful, effectively' stopped all the work since union members employed -by other contractors refused to cross the picket line.
To end the interruption respondents Door County, Zahn, and Oudenhoven sought an injunction in the local Circuit Court. ‘ Petitioners defended by claiming, among other things, that under the National Labor Relations Act the state courts had no jurisdiction and that the controversy was exclusively subject to National Labor Relations Board control. The trial court, believing that interstate commerce was not affected by the dispute, denied that the Board had jurisdiction and held that state power existed.. It found that state law had been violated by the picketing and issued an injunction. On appeal, the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed. - 4 Wis. 2d 142, 89 N. W. 2d 920. It apparently disagreed with the basis of the lower court’s holding and assumed that the dispute did affect interstate commerce, but held that the N. L. R. B. had no jurisdiction because Door County, a governmental subdivision, was among those seeking relief. Since the N. L. R; B. had no power, the court ruled, state laws were not pre-empted and the injunction could stand. Under similar circumstances both the National Labor Relations Board and the. United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit have concluded that the N. L. R. B. has jurisdiction. We granted certiorari to resolve this conflict. 358 U. S'. 878.
There can be no doubt that were Door County not a party to the litigation state courts would have no power over the dispute. The stipulated facts show that the total cost of the project was about $450,000. Roughly half of this was the cost of materials brought from outside Wisconsin. On similar facts this Court has often found a sufficient effect on commerce to give the N. L. R. B. jurisdiction. See, e. g., Labor Board v. Denver Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, 341 U. S. 675, 683-684. We see no reason to deviate from those holdings. It is also admitted that the dispute here involved is the kind over which the Labor Board normally has exclusive power. Respondents allege an attempt to force Zahn and the County to stop doing business with each other or, alternatively, to coerce Zahn into making his employees organize á union shop. Both of these allegations, if proved, would constitute unfair labor practices under § 8 (b) (4) of the National Labor Relations Act. If the charges are not proved the conduct might well.be “protected” under .§ 7 of the Labor Act. In either case this Court has held that the determination must be made by the N. L. R. B. and. that “state [courts] must decline jurisdiction in deference to the tribunal which Congress has selected. . . .”
It is claimed, however, that the presence of Door County somehow deprives the Board of jurisdiction and re-establishes state power. This contention is based on the fact that political subdivisions are expressly excluded from the definition of “employer” in the Labor Relations Act and therefore are not subject to many of its provisions. To allow the County to file a complaint against the union would, it has been argued, give the County the advantages of the Labor Relations Act without subjecting it to the correlative responsibilities the statute imposes.
In Local 25, Int’l Bro. of Teamsters v. New York. N. H. & H. R. Co., 350. U. S. 155, we decided that a railroad could seek relief before the Board although railroads, like political subdivisions, are' expressly excluded from the term “employer” in the Act. Our opinion pointed out that “the N. L. R. B. is empowered to issue complaints whenever ‘it is charged’ that' any person subject to the Act is engaged in any proscribed unfair labor practice,” and that Board regulations allow such a charge to be filed by “any person” as defined in the Act, 350 U. S., at 160. “Since railroads are not excluded from the Act’s definition of ‘person’ ...” we held that “they are entitled to Board protection from the kind of unfair labor practice proscribed by' § 8 (b)(4)(A),” reasoning that this result would best effectuate congressional policies of uniform control over labor abuses and protection of the parties injured by such practices. Ibid. .
The position of a county and á railroad would seem to be identical under, the Act, and the policy considerations which guided us in Local 25, like the statutory language there construed, would seem to apply equally here. Respondents attempt to distinguish the case by claiming that a political subdivision must be expressly included in a statute if it is to be considered within the law’s coverage and that essential state functions will be impaired if the county is subjected to N. L. R. B. coverage. But this Court has many times held that, government bodies not expressly included in a federal statute may, nevertheless, be subject to the law. And Board jurisdiction to grant relief, far from interfering with county functions, serves to safeguard the interests of such political subdivisions. Accordingly, we find neither of respondents’ contentions convincing.
We do not, of course, attempt to decide whether the Union’s conduct in this dispute violates §8 (b) (4), is protected by § 7, or is covered by neither provision of the Labor Act. Those are questions for the Board to determine in a proper proceeding brought before it. See, e. g., Weber v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 348 U. S. 468, 481. We merely hold that the Board has jurisdiction in this case and that, therefore, it was error for the Wisconsin courts to exercise jurisdiction.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin is reversed and the cause is remanded to that court for action not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
61 Stat. 136,, as amended, 29 U. S. C. §§ 151-168.
Labor Board v. Local 313, Int’l Bro. of Elect. Workers, 254 F. 2d 221, affirming Peter D. Furness, 117 N. L. R. B. 437. See also New Mexico Bldg. Branch, Assoc. Gen. Contractors, CCH 1957-1958 Labor L. Rep. (4th ed.) ¶ 55,304; Freeman Constr. Co., CCH 1957-1958 Labor L. Rep. (4th ed.) ¶ 55,353.
Section 8 (b)£4) provides in part: “It shall be an unfair labor practice for a lafc'or organization or its agents ... to engage in, or to induce or encourage the employees of any employer to engage in . . . a strike . . . where an-object thereof is: (A) forcing or requiring . . . any employer or. other person to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of any other producer, processor,.-or manufacturer, or ,to cease doing business with any other-person; (B) forcing or requiring any other employer to recognize or bargain with a labor organization as the representative of his employees unless such labor organization has been .certified as the representative of such employees . . . .” 61 Stat. 141, 29 U, S. C. §158 (b) (4).
Section 7 reads: “Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form,.join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage im other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining .or other mutual aid or protection . . . .” 61 Stat. 140, 29 U. S. C. § 157.
Weber v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 348 U. S. 468, 481. There is in this case no question of violence or of the power of state courts to award damages. See generally, San Diego Bldg. Trades Council v. Garmon, ante, p. 236.
“The term ‘employer’ . . . shall not include the United States or any wholly owned Government corporation,, or any Federal Reserve Bank, or any State or political subdivision thereof.” 61 Stat. 137,29 U. S. C. § 152 (2).
“The term ‘employer’ .". . shall not include . . . any person subject to' the Railway Labor Act ....’’ 61 Stat. 137, 29 U. S. C. § 152 (2). See 44 Stat. 577, as amended, 45 U. S.'C. §' 151.
29 CFR, 1958 Cum;‘Supp., §102.9, states “A charge that any person has engaged in or is engaging in any unfair labor practice affecting commerce máy be made by any. person. . . .” The definition of “person” in the regulations is the same as that in the Act itself. )29 .CFR, 1958 Cum. Supp., § 102.1. ' -
As defined in the Act, “The term ‘person’ includes one or more individuals, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers.” 61 Stat. 137, 29 U. S. C. § 152 (1). (Italics added.).
Significantly, before this Court’s decision in Local 25, Int’l Bro. of Teamsters v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 350 U. S. 155, the. N. L. R. B. agreed with respondents that political subdivisions were not “persons” under the Labor Act, but shortly after Local 25 the Board reversed itself since it felt the basis of its prior rulings had been completely undercut by Local 25. Compare Al J. Schneider Co., 87 N. L. R. B. 99; 89 N. L. R. B. 221; Victor M. Sprys, 104 N. L. R. B. 1128, with Peter D. Furness, 117 N. L. R. B. 437; New Mexico Bldg. Branch, Assoc. Gen. Contractors, CCH 1957-1958 Labor L. Rep. (4th ed.) ¶ 55,304.
See, e. g., Ohio v. Helvering, 292 U. S. 360, 370-371 (a State is a “person” within the meaning of a federal law taxing persons engaged in the sale of liquor); United States v. California, 297 U. S. 175, 186 (a .federal statute regulating common carriers by rail applies’ to. a State); Georgia v. Evans, 316 U. S. 159 (a'State is a “person” within the meaning of the Sherman Act, and may seek relief under that statute).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | J | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
While respondent was the front-seat passenger in an automobile, the car was stopped for failing to signal a left turn. As two police officers approached the vehicle, they saw respondent bend forward so that his head was at or below the level of the dashboard. The officers then observed an open bottle of malt liquor standing upright on the floorboard between respondent’s feet, and placed respondent under arrest for possession of open intoxicants in a motor vehicle. The 14-year-old driver was issued a citation for not having a driver’s license. Respondent claimed ownership of the car.
Respondent and the driver were taken to the patrol car, and a truck was called to tow respondent’s automobile. One of the officers searched the vehicle, pursuant to a departmental policy that impounded vehicles be searched prior to being towed. The officer found two bags of marihuana in the unlocked glove compartment.. The second officer then searched the car more thoroughly, checking under the front seat, under the dashboard, and inside the locked trunk. Opening the air vents under the dashboard, the officer discovered a loaded, .38-caliber revolver inside.
Respondent was convicted of possession of a concealed weapon. He moved for a new trial, contending that the revolver was taken from his car pursuant to an illegal search and seizure; the trial court denied the motion.
The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the warrantless search of respondent’s automobile violated the Fourth Amendment. 106 Mich. App. 601, 308 N. W. 2d 170 (1981). The court acknowledged that in South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U. S. 364 (1976), this Court upheld the validity of warrantless inventory searches of impounded motor vehicles. Moreover, the court found that, since respondent had been placed under arrest and the other occupant of the car was too young to legally drive, it was proper for the officers to impound the vehicle and to conduct an inventory search prior to its being towed. However, in the view of the Court of Appeals, the search conducted in this case was “unreasonable in scope,” because it extended to the air vents which, unlike the glove compartment or the trunk, were not a likely place for the storage of valuables or personal possessions. 106 Mich. App., at 606, 308 N. W. 2d, at 172.
The Court of Appeals also rejected the State’s contention that the scope of the inventory search was properly expanded when the officers discovered contraband in the glove compartment. The court concluded that, because both the car and its occupants were already in police custody, there were no “exigent circumstances” justifying a warrantless search for contraband.
We reverse. In Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U. S. 42 (1970), we held that when police officers have probable cause to believe there is contraband inside an automobile that has been stopped on the road, the officers may conduct a warrantless search of the vehicle, even after it has been impounded and is in police custody. We firmly reiterated this holding in Texas v. White, 423 U. S. 67 (1975). See also United States v. Ross, 456 U. S. 798, 807, n. 9 (1982). It is thus clear that the justification to conduct such a warrantless search does not vanish once the car has been immobilized; nor does it depend upon a reviewing court’s assessment of the likelihood in each particular case that the car would have been driven away, or that its contents would have been tampered with, during the period required for the police to obtain a warrant. See ibid.
Here, the Court of Appeals recognized that the officers were justified in conducting an inventory search of the car’s glove compartment, which led to the discovery of contraband. Without attempting to refute the State’s contention that this discovery gave the officers probable cause to believe there was contraband elsewhere in the vehicle, the Court of Appeals held that the absence of “exigent circumstances” precluded a warrantless search. This holding is plainly inconsistent with our decisions in Chambers and Texas v. White.
The petition for certiorari and the motion of respondent to proceed informa pauperis are granted, the judgment of the Michigan Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall would grant the petition for a writ of certiorari and set the case for oral argument.
The Court of Appeals did not directly address the State’s contention that the discovery of marihuana in the glove compartment provided probable cause to believe there was contraband hidden elsewhere in the vehicle. However, the court apparently assumed that the officers possessed information sufficient to support issuance of a warrant to search the automobile; the court’s holding was that the officers were required to obtain such a warrant, and could not search on the basis of probable cause alone. See 106 Mich. App., at 606-608, 308 N. W. 2d, at 172-173.
Even were some demonstrable “exigency” a necessary predicate to such a search, we would find somewhat curious the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that no “exigent circumstances” were present in this case. Unlike the searches involved in Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U. S. 42 (1970), and Texas v. White, 423 U. S. 67 (1975) — which were conducted at the station house — the search at issue here was conducted on the roadside, before the car had been towed. As pointed out by Judge Deneweth, in dissent, “there was a clear possibility that the occupants of the vehicle could have had unknown confederates who would return to remove the secreted contraband.” 106 Mich. App., at 609, 308 N. W. 2d, at 174.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Thomas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether a federal court may withhold full faith and credit from a state-court judgment approving a class-action settlement simply because the settlement releases claims within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts. The answer is no. Absent a partial repeal of the Full Faith and Credit Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1738, by another federal statute, a federal court must give the judgment the same effect that it would have in the courts of the State in which it was rendered.
I
In 1990, petitioner Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. made a tender offer for the common stock of MCA, Inc., a Delaware corporation. The tender offer not only resulted in Matsushita’s acquisition of MCA, but also precipitated two lawsuits on behalf of the holders of MCA’s common stock. First, a class action was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against MCA and its directors for breach of fiduciary duty in failing to maximize shareholder value. The complaint was later amended to state additional claims against MCA’s directors for, inter alia, waste of corporate assets by exposing MCA to liability under the federal securities laws. In addition, Matsushita was added as a defendant and was accused of conspiring with MCA’s directors to violate Delaware law. The Delaware suit was based purely on state-law claims.
While the state class action was pending, the instant suit was filed in Federal District Court in California. The complaint named Matsushita as a defendant and alleged that Matsushita’s tender offer violated Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rules 10b-13 and Md-lO. These Rules were created by the SEC pursuant to the 1968 Williams Act Amendments to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), 48 Stat. 881, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 78a et seq. Section 27 of the Exchange Act confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the federal courts for suits brought to enforce the Act or rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. See 15 U. S. C. § 78aa. The District Court declined to certify the class, entered summary judgment for Matsushita, and dismissed the case. The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
After the federal plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal but before the Ninth Circuit handed down a decision, the parties to the Delaware suit negotiated a settlement. In exchange for a global release of all claims arising out of the Matsushita-MCA acquisition, the defendants would deposit $2 million into a settlement fund to be distributed pro rata to the members of the class. As required by Delaware Chancery Rule 23, which is modeled on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Chancery Court certified the class for purposes of settlement and approved a notice of the proposed settlement. The notice informed the class members of their right to request exclusion from the settlement class and to appear and present argument at a scheduled hearing to determine the fairness of the settlement. In particular, the notice stated that “[b]y filing a valid Request for Exclusion, a member of the Settlement Class will not be precluded by the Settlement from individually seeking to pursue the claims alleged in the... California Federal Actions,... or any other claim relating to the events at issue in the Delaware Actions.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 96a. Two such notices were mailed to the class members and the notice was also published in the national edition of the Wall Street Journal. The Chancery Court then held a hearing. After argument from several objectors, the court found the class representation adequate and the settlement fair.
The order and final judgment of the Chancery Court incorporated the terms of the settlement agreement, providing:
“All claims, rights and causes of action (state or federal, including but not limited to claims arising under the federal securities law, any rules or regulations promulgated thereunder, or otherwise), whether known or unknown that are, could have been or might in the future be asserted by any of the plaintiffs or any member of the Settlement Class (other than those who have val idly requested exclusion therefrom),... in connection with or that arise now or hereafter out of the Merger Agreement, the Tender Offer, the Distribution Agreement, the Capital Contribution Agreement, the employee compensation arrangements, the Tender Agreements, the Initial Proposed Settlement, this Settlement... and including without limitation the claims asserted in the California Federal Actions... are hereby compromised, settled, released and discharged with prejudice by virtue of the proceedings herein and this Order and Final Judgment.” In re MCA, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, C. A. No. 11740 (Feb. 22, 1993), reprinted in App. to Pet. for Cert. 74a-75a (emphasis added).
The judgment also stated that the notice met all the requirements of due process. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed. In re MCA, Inc., Shareholders Litigation, 633 A. 2d 370 (1993) (judgt. order).
Respondents were members of both the state and federal plaintiff classes. Following issuance of the notice of proposed settlement of the Delaware litigation, respondents neither opted out of the settlement class nor appeared at the hearing to contest the settlement or the representation of the class. On appeal in the Ninth Circuit, petitioner Matsu-shita invoked the Delaware judgment as a bar to further prosecution of that action under the Full Faith and Credit Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1738.
The Ninth Circuit rejected petitioner’s argument, ruling that §1738 did not apply. Epstein v. MCA, Inc., 50 F. 3d 644, 661-666 (1995). Instead, the Court of Appeals fashioned a test under which the preclusive force of a state-court settlement judgment is limited to those claims that “could... have been extinguished by the issue preclusive effect of an adjudication of the state claims.” Id., at 665. The lower courts have taken varying approaches to determining the preclusive effect of a state-court judgment, entered in a class or derivative action, that provides for the release of exclusively federal claims. We granted certiorari to clarify this important area of federal law. 515 U. S. 1187 (1995).
II
The Full Faith and Credit Act mandates that the “judicial proceedings” of any State “shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States... as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State... from which they are taken.” 28 U. S. C. § 1738. The Act thus directs all courts to treat a state-court judgment with the same respect that it would receive in the courts of the rendering State. Federal courts may not “employ their own rules... in determining the effect of state judgments,” but must “accept the rules chosen by the State from which the judgment is taken.” Kremer v. Chemical Constr. Corp., 456 U. S. 461, 481-482 (1982). Because the Court of Appeals failed to follow the dictates of the Act, we reverse.
A
The state-court judgment in this case differs in two respects from the judgments that we have previously considered in our cases under the Full Faith and Credit Act. As respondents and the Court of Appeals stressed, the judgment was the product of a class action and incorporated a settlement agreement releasing claims within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts. Though respondents urge “the irrelevance of section 1738 to this litigation,” Brief for Respondents 25, we do not think that either of these features exempts the judgment from the operation of § 1738.
That the judgment at issue is the result of a class action, rather than a suit brought by an individual, does not undermine the initial applicability of § 1738. The judgment of a state court in a class action is plainly the product of a “judicial proceeding” within the meaning of § 1738. Cf. McDonald v. West Branch, 466 U. S. 284, 287-288 (1984) (holding that § 1738 does not apply to arbitration awards because arbitration is not a “judicial proceeding”). Therefore, a judgment entered in a class action, like any other judgment entered in a state judicial proceeding, is presumptively entitled to full faith and credit under the express terms of the Act.
Further, § 1738 is not irrelevant simply because the judgment in question might work to bar the litigation of exclusively federal claims. Our decision in Marrese v. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 470 U. S. 373 (1985), made clear that where § 1738 is raised as a defense in a subsequent suit, the fact that an allegedly precluded “claim is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts does not necessarily make §1738 inapplicable.” Id., at 380 (emphasis added). In so holding, we relied primarily on Kremer v. Chemical Constr. Corp., supra, which held, without deciding whether claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are exclusively federal, that state-court proceedings may be issue preclusive in Title VII suits in federal court. Kremer, we said, “implies that absent an exception to § 1738, state law determines at least the... preclusive effect of a prior state judgment in a subsequent action involving a claim within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts.” Marrese, 470 U. S., at 381. Accordingly, we decided that “a state court judgment may in some circumstances have pre-clusive effect in a subsequent action within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts.” Id., at 380.
In Marrese, we discussed Nash County Bd. of Ed. v. Biltmore Co., 640 F. 2d 484 (CA4), cert. denied, 454 U. S. 878 (1981), a case that concerned a state-court settlement judgment. In Nash, the question was whether the judgment, which approved the settlement of state antitrust claims, prevented the litigation of exclusively federal antitrust claims. See 470 U. S., at 382, n. 2. We suggested that the approach outlined in Marrese would also apply in cases like Nash that involve judgments upon settlement: that is, § 1738 would control at the outset. See 470 U. S., at 382, n. 2. In accord with these precedents, we conclude that § 1738 is generally applicable in cases in which the state-court judgment at issue incorporates a class-action settlement releasing claims solely within the jurisdiction of the federal courts.
B
Marrese provides the analytical framework for deciding whether the Delaware court’s judgment precludes this exclusively federal action. When faced with a state-court judgment relating to an exclusively federal claim, a federal court must first look to the law of the rendering State to ascertain the effect of the judgment. See id., at 381-382. If state law indicates that the particular claim or issue would be barred from litigation in a court of that State, then the federal court must next decide whether, “as an exception to §1738,” it “should refuse to give preclusive effect to [the] state court judgment.” Id., at 383. See also Migra v. Warren City School Dist. Bd. of Ed., 465 U. S. 75, 81 (1984) (“[I]n the absence of federal law modifying the operation of § 1738, the preclusive effect in federal court of [a] state-court judgment is determined by [state] law”).
1
We observed in Marrese that the inquiry into state law would not always yield a direct answer. Usually, “a state court will not have occasion to address the specific question whether a state judgment has issue or claim preclusive effect in a later action that can be brought only in federal court.” 470 U. S., at 381-382. Where a judicially approved settlement is under consideration, a federal court may consequently find guidance from general state law on the pre-clusive force of settlement judgments. See, e. g., id., at 382-383, n. 2 (observing in connection with Nash that “[North Carolina] law gives preclusive effect to consent judgment^]”). Here, in addition to providing rules regarding the preclusive force of class-action settlement judgments in subsequent suits in state court, the Delaware courts have also spoken to the particular effect of such judgments- in federal court.
Delaware has traditionally treated the impact of settlement judgments on subsequent litigation in state court as a question of claim preclusion. Early cases suggested that Delaware courts would not afford claim preclusive effect to a settlement releasing claims that could not have been presented in the trial court. See Ezzes v. Ackerman, 234 A. 2d 444, 445-446 (Del. 1967) (“[A] judgment entered either after trial on the merits or upon an approved settlement is res judicata and bars subsequent suit on the same claim.... [T]he defense of res judicata... is available if the pleadings framing the issues in the first action would have permitted the raising of the issue sought to be raised in the second action, and if the facts were known, or could have been known to the plaintiff in the second action at the time of the first action”). As the Court of Chancery has perceived, however, “the Ezzes inquiry [was] modified in regard to class actions,” In re Union Square Associates Securities Litigation, C. A. No. 11028, 1993 WL 220528, *3 (June 16, 1993), by the Delaware Supreme Court’s decision in Nottingham Partners v. Dana, 564 A. 2d 1089 (1989).
In Nottingham, a class action, the Delaware Supreme Court approved a settlement that released claims then pending in federal court. In approving that settlement, the Nottingham court appears to have eliminated the Ezzes requirement that the claims could have been raised in the suit that produced the settlement, at least with respect to class actions:
“ ‘[I]n order to achieve a comprehensive settlement that would prevent relitigation of settled questions at the core of a class action, a court may permit the release of a claim based on the identical factual predicate as that underlying the claims in the settled class action even though the claim was not presented and might not have been presentable in the class action.’” 564 A. 2d, at 1106 (quoting TBK Partners, Ltd. v. Western Union Corp., 675 F. 2d 456, 460 (CA2 1982)).
See Union Square, supra, at *3 (relying directly on Nottingham to hold that a Delaware court judgment settling a class action was res judicata and barred arbitration of duplicative claims that could not have been brought in the first suit). These cases indicate that even if, as here, a claim could not have been raised in the court that rendered the settlement judgment in a class action, a Delaware court would still find that the judgment bars subsequent pursuit of the claim.
The Delaware Supreme Court has further manifested its understanding that when the Court of Chancery approves a global release of claims, its settlement judgment should preclude ongoing or future federal-court litigation of any released claims. In Nottingham, the Court stated that “[t]he validity of executing a general release in conjunction with the termination of litigation has long been recognized by the Delaware courts. More specifically, the Court of Chancery has a history of approving settlements that have implicitly or explicitly included a general release, which would also release federal claims.” 564 A. 2d, at 1105 (citation omitted). Though the Delaware Supreme Court correctly recognized in Nottingham that it lacked actual authority to order the dismissal of any case pending in federal court, it asserted that state-court approval of the settlement would have the collateral effect of preventing class members from prosecuting their claims in federal court. Perhaps the clearest statement of the Delaware Chancery Court’s view on this matter was articulated in the suit preceding this one: “When a state court settlement of a class action releases all claims which arise out of the challenged transaction and is determined to be fair and to have met all due process requirements, the class members are bound by the release or the doctrine of issue preclusion. Class members cannot subsequently reliti-gate the claims barred by the settlement in a federal court.” In re MCA, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, 598 A. 2d 687, 691 (1991). We are aware of no Delaware case that suggests otherwise.
Given these statements of Delaware law, we think that a Delaware court would afford preclusive effect to the settlement judgment in this case, notwithstanding the fact that respondents could not have pressed their Exchange Act claims in the Court of Chancery. The claims are clearly within the scope of the release in the judgment, since the judgment specifically refers to this lawsuit. As required by Delaware Court of Chancery Rule 23, see Prezant v. De Angelis, 636 A. 2d 915, 920 (1994), the Court of Chancery found, and the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed, that the settlement was “fair, reasonable and adequate and in the best interests of the... Settlement class” and that notice to the class was “in full compliance with... the requirements of due process.” In re MCA, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, C. A. No. 11740 (Feb. 22, 1993), reprinted in App. to Pet. for Cert. 73a, 74a. Cf. Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U. S. 797, 812 (1985) (due process for class-action plaintiffs requires “notice plus an opportunity to be heard and participate in the litigation”). The Court of Chancery “further determined that the plaintiffs[,]... as representatives of the Settlement Class, have fairly and adequately protected the interests of the Settlement Class.” In re MCA, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, supra, reprinted in App. to Pet. for Cert. 73a. Cf. Phillips Petroleum Co., supra, at 812 (due process requires that “the named plaintiff at all times adequately represent the interests of the absent class members”). Under Delaware Rule 23, as under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, “[a]ll members of the class, whether of a plaintiff or a defendant class, are bound by the judgment entered in the action unless, in a Rule 23(b)(3) action, they make a timely election for exclusion.” 2 H. Newberg, Class Actions §2755, p. 1224 (1977). See also Cooper v. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, 467 U. S. 867, 874 (1984) (“There is of course no dispute that under elementary principles of prior adjudication a judgment in a properly entertained class action is binding on class members in any subsequent litigation”). Respondents do not deny that, as shareholders of MCA’s common stock, they were part of the plaintiff class and that they never opted out; they are bound, then, by the judgment.
2
Because it appears that the settlement judgment would be res judicata under Delaware law, we proceed to the second step of the Marrese analysis and ask whether §27 of the Exchange Act, which confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the federal courts for suits arising under the Act, partially repealed § 1738. Section 27 contains no express language regarding its relationship with § 1738 or the preclusive effect of related state-court proceedings. Thus, any modification of § 1738 by § 27 must be implied. In deciding whether § 27 impliedly created an exception to § 1738, the “general question is whether the concerns underlying a particular grant of exclusive jurisdiction justify a finding of an implied partial repeal of § 1738.” Marrese, 470 U. S., at 386. “Resolution of this question will depend on the particular federal statute as well as the nature of the claim or issue involved in the subsequent federal action.... [T]he primary consideration must be the intent of Congress.” Ibid.
As a historical matter, we have seldom, if ever, held that a federal statute impliedly repealed §1738. See Parsons Steel, Inc. v. First Alabama Bank, 474 U. S. 518, 523-525 (1986) (Anti-Injunction Act does not limit § 1738); Migra v. Warren City School Dist. Bd. of Ed., 465 U. S., at 83-85 (42 U. S. C. § 1983 does not limit claim preclusion under § 1738); Kremer v. Chemical Constr. Corp., 456 U. S., at 468-476 (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not limit § 1738); Allen v. McCurry, 449 U. S. 90, 96-105 (1980) (§ 1983 does not limit issue preclusion under § 1738). But cf. Brown v. Felsen, 442 U. S. 127, 138-139 (1979) (declining to give claim preclusive effect to prior state-court debt collection proceeding in federal bankruptcy suit, without discussing § 1738, state law, or implied repeals). The rarity with which we have discovered implied repeals is due to the relatively stringent standard for such findings, namely, that there be an “‘irreconcilable conflict’” between the two federal statutes at issue. Kremer v. Chemical Constr. Corp., supra, at 468 (quoting Radzanower v. Touche Ross & Co., 426 U. S. 148, 154 (1976)).
Section 27 provides that “[t]he district courts of the United ¡States... shall have exclusive jurisdiction... of all suits in. equity and actions at law brought to enforce any lability or duty created by this; chapter- or the rules and regulations thereunder.” 153 U.S. €3, &78'aa-. There is mo¡ suggestion in § 27 that Congress- meant for plaintiff® with Exchange Act claims to have more; than one day in court to challenge the legality of a securities transaction. Though the statute plainly mandates that suits alleging violations of the Exchange Act may be maintained only in federal court, nothing in the language of §27 “remotely expresses any congressional intent to contravene the common-law rules of preclusion or to repeal the express statutory requirements of... 28 U. S. C. § 1738.” Allen v. McCurry, supra, at 97-98.
Nor does § 27 evince any intent to prevent litigants in state court — whether suing as individuals or as part of a class— from voluntarily releasing Exchange Act claims in judicially approved settlements. While §27 prohibits state courts from adjudicating claims arising under the Exchange Act, it does not prohibit state courts from approving the release of Exchange Act claims in the settlement of suits over which they have properly exercised jurisdiction, i. e., suits arising under state law or under federal law for which there is concurrent jurisdiction. In this case, for example, the Delaware action was not “brought to enforce” any rights or obligations under the Act. The Delaware court asserted judicial power over a complaint asserting purely state-law causes of action and, after the parties agreed to settle, certified the class and approved the settlement pursuant to the requirements of Delaware Rule of Chancery 23 and the Due Process Clause. Thus, the Delaware court never trespassed upon the exclusive territory of the federal courts, but merely approved the settlement of a common-law suit pursuant to state and nonexclusive federal law. See Abramson v. Pennwood Investment Corp., 392 F. 2d 759, 762 (CA2 1968) (“Although the state court could not adjudicate the federal claim, it was within'its powers over the corporation and the parties to approve the release of that claim as a condition of settlement of the state action”). While it is true that the state court assessed the general worth of the federal claims in determining the fairness of the settlement, such assessment does not amount to a judgment on the merits of the claims. See TBK Partners, Ltd. v. Western Union Corp., 675 F. 2d 456, 461 (CA2 1982) (“ Approval of a settlement does not call for findings of fact regarding the claims to be compromised. The court is concerned only with the likelihood of success or failure; the actual merits of the controversy are not to be determined’ ”) (quoting Haudek, The Settlement and Dismissal of Stockholders’ Actions-Part II: The Settlement, 23 Sw. L. J. 765, 809 (1969) (footnotes omitted)). The Delaware court never purported to resolve the merits of the Exchange Act claims in the course of appraising the settlement; indeed, it expressly disavowed that purpose. See In re MCA, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, C. A. No. 11740 (Feb. 16, 1993), reprinted in App. to Pet. for Cert. 68a (“In determining whether a settlement should be approved, a court should not try the merits of the underlying claims. This principle would seem to be especially appropriate where the underlying claims, like the federal claims here, are outside the jurisdiction of this Court” (citation omitted)).
The legislative history of the Exchange Act elucidates no specific purpose on the part of Congress in enacting §27. See Murphy v. Gallagher, 761 F. 2d 878, 885 (CA2 1985) (noting that the legislative history of the Exchange Act provides no readily apparent explanation for the provision of exclusive jurisdiction in § 27) (citing 2 & 3 L. Loss, Securities Regulation 997, 2005 (2d ed. 1961)). We may presume, however, that Congress intended § 27 to serve at least the general purposes underlying most grants of exclusive jurisdiction: “to achieve greater uniformity of construction and more effective and expert application of that law.” Murphy v. Gallagher, supra, at 885. When a state court upholds a settlement that releases claims under the Exchange Act, it threatens neither of these policies. There is no danger that state-court judges who are not fully expert in federal securities law will say definitively what the Exchange Act means and enforce legal liabilities and duties thereunder. And the uniform construction of the Act is unaffected by a state court’s approval of a proposed settlement because the state court does not adjudicate the Exchange Act claims but only evaluates the overall fairness of the settlement, generally by applying its own business judgment to the facts of the case. See, e. g., Polk v. Good, 507 A. 2d 531, 535 (Del. 1986).
Furthermore, other provisions of the Exchange Act suggest that Congress did not intend to create an exception to §1738 for suits alleging violations of the Act. Congress plainly contemplated the possibility of dual litigation in state and federal courts relating to securities transactions. See 15 U. S. C. § 78bb(a) (preserving “all other rights and remedies that may exist at law or in equity”). And all that Congress chose to say about the consequences of such litigation is that plaintiffs ought not obtain double recovery. See ibid. Congress said nothing to modify the background rule that where a state-court judgment precedes that of a federal court, the federal court must give full faith and credit to the state-court judgment. See Murphy v. Gallagher, supra, at 884.
Finally, precedent supports the conclusion that the concerns underlying the grant of exclusive jurisdiction in §27 are not undermined by state-court approval of settlements releasing Exchange Act claims. We have held that state-court proceedings may, in various ways, subsequently affect the litigation of exclusively federal claims without running afoul of the federal jurisdictional grant in question. In Becher v. Contoure Laboratories, Inc., 279 U. S. 388 (1929) (cited in Marrese, 470 U. S., at 381), we held that state-court findings of fact were issue preclusive in federal patent suits. We did so with full recognition that “the logical conclusion from the establishing of [the state law] claim is that Becher’s patent is void.” 279 U. S., at 391. Becher reasoned that although “decrees validating or invalidating patents belong to the Courts of the United States,” that “does not give sacro-sanctity to facts that may be conclusive upon the question in issue.” Ibid. Similarly, while binding legal determinations of rights and liabilities under the Exchange Act are for federal courts only, there is nothing sacred about the approval of settlements of suits arising under state law, even where the parties agree to release exclusively federal claims. See also Brown v. Felsen, 442 U. S., at 139, n. 10 (noting that “[i]f, in the course of adjudicating a state-law question, a state court should determine factual issues using standards identical to those of § 17, then collateral estoppel, in the absence of countervailing statutory policy, would bar relitigation of those issues in the bankruptcy court”); Pratt v. Paris Gas Light & Coke Co., 168 U. S. 255, 258 (1897) (when a state court has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter of the complaint, the state court may decide the validity of a patent when that issue is raised as a defense).
We have also held that Exchange Act claims may be resolved by arbitration rather than litigation in federal court. In Shearson/American Express Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U. S. 220 (1987), we found that parties to an arbitration agreement could waive the right to have their Exchange Act claims tried in federal court and agree to arbitrate the claims. Id., at 227-228. It follows that state-court litigants ought also to be able to waive, or “release,” the right to litigate Exchange Act claims in a federal forum as part of a settlement agreement. As Shearson!American Express Inc. demonstrates, a statute conferring exclusive federal jurisdiction for a certain class of claims does not necessarily require resolution of those claims in a federal court.
Taken together, these cases stand for the general proposition that even when exclusively federal claims are at stake, there is no “universal right to litigate a federal claim in a federal district court.” Allen v. McCurry, 449 U. S., at 105. If class-action plaintiffs wish to preserve absolutely their right to litigate exclusively federal claims in federal court, they should either opt out of the settlement class or object to the release of any exclusively federal claims. In fact, some of the plaintiffs in the Delaware class action requested exclusion from the settlement class. They are now proceeding in federal court with their federal claims, unimpeded by the Delaware judgment.
In the end, §§27 and 1738 “do not pose an either-or proposition.” Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Germain, 503 U. S. 249, 253 (1992). They can be reconciled by reading §1738 to mandate full faith and credit of state-court judgments incorporating global settlements, provided the rendering court had jurisdiction over the underlying suit itself, and by reading § 27 to prohibit state courts from exercising jurisdiction over suits arising under the Exchange Act. Cf. 18 C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4470, pp. 688-689 (1981) (“[Settlement of state court litigation has been held to defeat a subsequent federal action if the settlement was intended to apply to claims in exclusive federal jurisdiction as well as other claims.... These rulings are surely correct”). Congress’ intent to provide an exclusive federal forum for adjudication of suits to enforce the Exchange Act is clear enough. But we can find no suggestion in § 27 that Congress meant to override the “principles of comity and repose embodied in § 1738,” Kremer v. Chemical Constr. Corp., 456 U. S., at 463, by allowing plaintiffs with Exchange Act claims to release those claims in state court and then litigate them in federal court. We conclude that the Delaware courts would give the settlement judgment preclusive effect in a subsequent proceeding and, further, that § 27 did not effect a partial repeal of § 1738.
C
The Court of Appeals did not engage in any analysis of Delaware law pursuant to § 1738. Rather, the Court of Appeals declined to apply § 1738 on the ground that where the rendering forum lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter or the parties, full faith and credit is not required. 50 F. 3d, at 661, 666. See Underwriters Nat. Assurance Co. v. North Carolina Life & Accident & Health Ins. Guaranty Assn., 455 U. S. 691, 704-705 (1982) (“ ‘[A] judgment of a court in one State is conclusive upon the merits in a court in another State only if the court in the first State had power to pass on the merits — had jurisdiction, that is, to render the judgment’”) (quoting Durfee v. Duke, 375 U. S. 106, 110 (1963)). The Court of Appeals decided that the subject-matter jurisdiction exception to full faith and credit applies to this case because the Delaware court acted outside the bounds of its own jurisdiction in approving the settlement, since the settlement released exclusively federal claims. See 50 F. 3d, at 661-662, and n. 25.
As explained above, the state court in this case clearly possessed jurisdiction over the subject matter of the underlying suit and over the defendants. Only if this were not so — for instance, if the complaint alleged violations of the Exchange Act and- the Delaware court rendered a judgment on the merits of those claims — would the exception to § 1738 for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction apply. Where, as here, the rendering court in fact had subject-matter jurisdiction, the subject-matter-jurisdiction exception to full faith and credit is simply inapposite. In such a case, the relevance of a federal statute that provides for exclusive federal jurisdiction is not to the state court’s possession of jurisdiction per se, but to the existence of a partial repeal of § 1738.
* * *
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
We express no opinion in this case on the existence of a private cause of action under §§ 14(d)(6) and (7) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U. S. C. §§ 78n(d)(6) and (7), the statutory authority for Rule 14d-10.
A previous settlement was rejected by the Court of Chancery as unfair to the class. See In re MCA, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, 598 A. 2d 687 (1991).
Compare the decision below with Grimes v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 17 F. 3d 1553 (CA3), cert. denied, 513 U. S. 986 (1994); Nottingham Partners v. Trans-Lux Corp., 925 F. 2d 29 (CA1 1991); and Abramson v. Pennwood Investment Corp., 392 F. 2d 759 (CA2 1968).
In fact, the Chancery Court rejected the first settlement, which contained no opt-out provision, as unfair to the class precisely because it believed that the settlement would preclude the class from pursuing their exclusively federal claims in federal court. See In re MCA, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, 598 A. 2d, at 692 (“[I]f this Court provides for the release of all the claims arising out of the challenged transaction, the claims which the Objectors have asserted in the federal suit will likely be forever barred”).
Apart from any discussion of Delaware law, respondents contend that the settlement proceedings did not satisfy due process because the
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The trial court accepted respondent John Franklin Pro-sise’s plea of guilty to one count of manufacturing a controlled substance — phencyclidine. At the hearing at which respondent pleaded guilty, a police officer gave a brief account of the search of respondent’s apartment that led to the discovery of material typically used in manufacturing this substance. Thereafter, Prosise brought a damages action under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 in Federal District Court against petitioner Gilbert A. Haring and the other officers who participated in the search of his apartment. The question presented by this case is whether respondent’s § 1983 claim is barred by his prior guilty plea.
Í — f
On April 27, 1978, pursuant to a plea agreement, Prosise pleaded guilty in the Circuit Court for Arlington County, Va., to one count of manufacturing phencyclidine. The Commonwealth then called one witness, Detective Henry Allen of the Arlington County Police Department. Allen testified that on September 7, 1977, he responded to a radio call directing him to an Arlington apartment which turned out to be leased to Prosise. By the time he arrived, two uniformed officers had placed Prosise under arrest for the possession of a controlled substance. After entering the apartment, Allen noticed various chemicals in the apartment as well as a quantity of what he believed to be phencyclidine. A warrant was later obtained for a search of the apartment. Allen and Detective Petti then conducted a search which led to the seizure of devices, and chemicals used to manufacture phencyclidine, receipts for such chemicals, a paper containing a formula for making phencyclidine, and two buckets containing traces of the substance.
At the conclusion of Allen’s testimony, the judge accepted Prosise’s guilty plea, finding that it had been entered voluntarily and intelligently and that it had a sufficient basis in fact. On June 23, 1978, the court denied Prosise’s motion to withdraw his plea and sentenced him to 25 years’ imprisonment.
On January 23, 1979, while under confinement in the Arlington Detention Center, Prosise filed a pro se action under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 against Lt. Gilbert A. Haring and various other members of the Arlington County Police Department who had participated in the search of his apartment. His complaint alleged that the officers had unlawfully searched his apartment prior to obtaining a search warrant, and that after obtaining the warrant the officers conducted a search that exceeded the scope of the warrant.
The District Court granted summary judgment for defendants on the ground that Prosise’s guilty plea to the charge of manufacturing phencyclidine barred his § 1983 claim. The court reasoned that Prosise’s failure to assert his Fourth Amendment claim in state court constituted a waiver of that right, precluding its assertion in any subsequent proceeding. It relied primarily on this Court’s decision in Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U. S. 258 (1973), which held that when a state criminal defendant has pleaded guilty to the offense for which he was indicted by the grand jury, he cannot in a later federal habeas corpus proceeding raise a claim of discrimination in the selection of the grand jury. The District Court stated that, under the reasoning in Tollett, a guilty plea would similarly foreclose federal habeas inquiry into the constitutionality of a search that turned up evidence of the crime charged. The court concluded:
“If a defendant who pleads guilty is foreclosed from obtaining his freedom because of an illegal search and seizure, he should not be allowed to secure damages in a § 1983 suit and thereby litigate the antecedent constitutional question relating to the search that could not otherwise be heard because of Tollett.”
The District Court also appears to have held that Prosise’s plea of guilty constituted an implied admission that the search of his apartment was legal. The court stated that even though the constitutionality of the police conduct was not litigated in the state criminal proceedings, Prosise’s “plea of guilty estops him from asserting a fourth amendment claim in a § 1983 suit [because his] plea of guilty necessarily implied that the search giving rise to the incriminating evidence was lawful.”
The Court of Appeals reversed in pertinent part and remanded for further proceedings. 667 F. 2d 1133 (CA4 1981). It held that the principles governing guilty pleas announced in Tollett are applicable only to subsequent habeas corpus proceedings and that the preclusive effect, if any, of a guilty plea upon subsequent proceedings under §1983 “is to be determined on the basis of other principles, specifically, of collateral estoppel and the full faith and credit statute, 28 U. S. C. § 1738.” Id., at 1136-1137. The Court of Appeals proceeded to examine the law of Virginia “to determine whether, and to what extent, that state would give preclu-sive effect to the criminal judgment here in issue.” Id., at 1138. The court found that under Virginia law “criminal judgments, whether by guilty plea or adjudicated guilt, have no preclusive effect in subsequent civil litigation.” Id., at 1139. Because the courts of Virginia would not give preclu-sive effect to the criminal judgment, it was not entitled to any greater effect under § 1738.
The Court of Appeals concluded that in any event a guilty plea should not “have preclusive effect as to potential but not actually litigated issues respecting the exclusion of evidence on fourth amendment grounds.” Id., at 1140-1141. The court cited the general view of courts and commentators that “among the most critical guarantees of fairness in applying collateral estoppel is the guarantee that the party sought to be estopped had not only a full and fair opportunity but an adequate incentive to litigate ‘to the hilt’ the issues in question.” Id., at 1141. Unlike a criminal defendant who has been convicted after a full trial on the criminal charges, a defendant who pleads guilty has not necessarily had an adequate incentive to litigate “with respect to potential but unlitigated issues related to the exclusion of evidence on fourth amendment grounds.” Ibid.
After the Court of Appeals denied rehearing, id., at 1143, petitioners’ suggestion for rehearing en banc was denied by an equally divided court. Ibid. We granted certiorari, 459 U. S. 904 (1982), to resolve the uncertainty concerning the impact of a guilty plea upon a later suit under § 1983. We now affirm.
l — l
We must decide whether Prosise s § 1983 action to redress an alleged Fourth Amendment violation is barred by the judgment of conviction entered in state court following his guilty plea. Petitioners’ initial argument is that under principles of collateral estoppel generally applied by the Virginia courts, Prosise’s conviction would bar his subsequent civil challenge to police conduct, and that a federal court must therefore give the state judgment the same effect under 28 U. S. C. § 1738.
In Allen v. McCurry, 449 U. S. 90 (1980), the Court considered whether the doctrine of collateral estoppel can be invoked against a § 1983 claimant to bar relitigation of a Fourth Amendment claim decided against him in a state criminal proceeding. The Court rejected the view that, because the § 1983 action provides the only route to federal district court for the plaintiff’s constitutional claim, relitigation of the Fourth Amendment question in federal court must be permitted. No support was found in the Constitution or in § 1983 for the “principle that every person asserting a federal right is entitled to one unencumbered opportunity to litigate that right in a federal district court, regardless of” whether that claim has already been decided against him after a full and fair proceeding in state court. Id., at 103. The Court concluded that the doctrine of collateral estoppel therefore applies to §1983 suits against police officers to recover for Fourth Amendment violations. The Court in Allen v. McCurry did not consider precisely how the doctrine of collateral estoppel should be applied to a Fourth Amendment question that was litigated and decided during the course of a state criminal trial. Id., at 105, n. 25.
We begin by reviewing the principles governing our determination whether a §1983 claimant will be collaterally es-topped from litigating an issue on the basis of a prior state-court judgment. Title 28 U. S. C. § 1738 generally requires “federal courts to give preclusive effect to state-court judgments whenever the courts of the State from which the judgments emerged would do so.” Allen v. McCurry, 449 U. S., at 96. In federal actions, including § 1983 actions, a state-court judgment will not be given collateral-estoppel effect, however, where “the party against whom an earlier court decision is asserted did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the claim or issue decided by the first court.” Id., at 101. Moreover, additional exceptions to collateral estoppel may be warranted in § 1983 actions in light of the “understanding of § 1983” that “the federal courts could step in where the state courts were unable or unwilling to protect federal rights.” Ibid. Cf. id., at 95, n. 7; Board of Regents v. Tomanio, 446 U. S. 478, 485-486 (1980) (42 U. S. C. § 1988 authorizes federal courts, in an action under § 1983, to disregard an otherwise applicable state rule of law if the state law is inconsistent with the federal policy underlying § 1983).
The threshold question is whether, under the rules of collateral estoppel applied by the Virginia courts, the judgment of conviction based upon Prosise’s guilty plea would foreclose him in a later civil action from challenging the legality of a search which had produced inculpatory evidence. Because there is no Virginia decision precisely on point, we must look for guidance to Virginia decisions concerning collateral estop-pel generally. While it is often appropriate to look to the law as it is generally applied in other jurisdictions for additional guidance, we need not do so in this case because the state-law question is not a particularly difficult one.
The courts of Virginia have long recognized that a valid final “ ‘judgment rendered upon one cause of action’ ” may bar a party to that action from later litigating “ ‘matters arising in a suit upon a different cause of action.’” Eason v. Eason, 204 Va. 347, 350, 131 S. E. 2d 280, 282 (1963), quoting Kemp v. Miller, 166 Va. 661, 674-675, 186 S. E. 99, 104 (1936). However, “the judgment in the prior action operates as an estoppel only as to those matters in issue or points controverted, upon the determination of which the finding or verdict was rendered.” Ibid. Unless an issue was actually litigated and determined in the former judicial proceeding, Virginia law will not treat it as final. See, e. g., Luke Construction Co. v. Simpkins, 223 Va. 387, 291 S. E. 2d 204 (1982); Eason v. Eason, supra. Compare Brown v. Felsen, 442 U. S. 127, 139, n. 10 (1979). Furthermore, collateral es-toppel precludes the litigation of only those issues necessary to support the judgment entered in the first action. As the Virginia Supreme Court stated in Petrus v. Robbins, 196 Va. 322, 330, 83 S. E. 2d 408, 412 (1954), “[t]o render the judgment conclusive, it must appear by the record of the prior suit that the particular matter sought to be concluded was necessarily tried or determined, — that is, that the verdict could not have been rendered without deciding that matter.” Cf. Block v. Commissioners, 99 U. S. 686, 693 (1879); Segal v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 606 F. 2d 842, 845, n. 2 (CA9 1979).
It is clear from the foregoing that the doctrine of collateral estoppel would not be invoked in this case by the Virginia courts for at least three reasons. First, the legality of the search of Prosise’s apartment was not actually litigated in the criminal proceedings. Indeed, no issue was “actually litigated” in the state proceeding since Prosise declined to contest his guilt in any way. Second, the criminal proceedings did not actually decide against Prosise any issue on which he must prevail in order to establish his § 1983 claim. The only question raised by the criminal indictment and determined by Prosise's guilty plea in Arlington Circuit Court was whether Prosise unlawfully engaged in the manufacture of a controlled substance. This question is simply irrelevant to the legality of the search under the Fourth Amendment or to Prosise’s right to compensation from state officials under § 1983.
Finally, none of the issues in the § 1983 action could have been “necessarily” determined in the criminal proceeding. Specifically, a determination that the county police officers engaged in no illegal police conduct would not have been essential to the trial court’s acceptance of Prosise’s guilty plea. Indeed, a determination that the search of Prosise’s apartment was illegal would have been entirely irrelevant in the context of the guilty plea proceeding. Neither state nor federal law requires that a guilty plea in state court be supported by legally admissible evidence where the accused’s valid waiver of his right to stand trial is accompanied by a confession of guilt. See Kibert v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 660, 222 S. E. 2d 790 (1976); cf. North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U. S. 25, 37-38, and n. 10 (1970); Willett v. Georgia, 608 F. 2d 538, 540 (CA5 1979).
We therefore conclude that Virginia law would not bar Prosise from litigating the validity of the search conducted by petitioners. Accordingly, the issue is not foreclosed under 28 U. S. C. § 1738.
Ill
We turn next to petitioners’ contention that even if Prosise’s claim is not precluded under §1738, this Court should create a special rule of preclusion which nevertheless would bar litigation of his § 1983 claim. As a general matter, even when issues have been raised, argued, and decided in a prior proceeding, and are therefore preclusive under state law, “[r]edetermination of [the] issues [may nevertheless be] warranted if there is reason to doubt the quality, extensiveness, or fairness of procedures followed in prior litigation.” Montana v. United States, 440 U. S. 147, 164, n. 11 (1979). Yet petitioners maintain that Prosise should be barred from litigating an issue that was never raised, argued, or decided, simply because he had an opportunity to raise the issue in a previous proceeding. Petitioners reason that by pleading guilty Prosise should be deemed to have either admitted the legality of the search or waived any Fourth Amendment claim, thereby precluding him from asserting that claim in any subsequent suit. According to petitioners, such a federal rule of preclusion imposed in addition to the requirements of § 1738 is necessary to further important interests in judicial administration.
There is no justification for creating such an anomalous rule. To begin with, Prosise’s guilty plea in no way constituted an admission that the search of his apartment was proper under the Fourth Amendment. During the course of proceedings in Arlington County Circuit Court, Prosise made no concession with respect to the Fourth Amendment claim.
Petitioners contend that we should infer such an admission because Prosise had a substantial incentive to elect to go to trial if he considered his Fourth Amendment claim meritorious since the State would most likely have been unable to obtain a conviction in the absence of the evidence seized from Prosise’s apartment. In our view, however, it is impermissible for a court to assume that a plea of guilty is based on a defendant’s determination that he would be unable to prevail on a motion to suppress evidence. As we recognized in Brady v. United States, 397 U. S. 742, 750 (1970), and reaffirmed in Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U. S., at 263, a defendant’s decision to plead guilty may have any number of other motivations:
“For some people, their breach of a State’s law is alone sufficient reason for surrendering themselves and accepting punishment. For others, apprehension and charge, both threatening acts by the Government, jar them into admitting their guilt. In still other cases, the post-indictment accumulation of evidence may convince the defendant and his counsel that a trial is not worth the agony and expense to the defendant and his family.”
Similarly, a prospect of a favorable plea agreement or “the expectation or hope of a lesser sentence... are considerations that might well suggest the advisability of a guilty plea without elaborate consideration of whether [a Fourth Amendment challenge to the introduction of inculpatory evidence] might be factually supported.” Tollett v. Henderson, supra, at 268. Therefore, Prosise’s decision not to exercise his right to stand trial cannot be regarded as a concession of any kind that a Fourth Amendment evidentiary challenge would fail. Cf. Brown v. Felsen, 442 U. S., at 137.
We similarly reject the view, argued by petitioners and accepted by the District Court, that by pleading guilty Prosise “waived” any claim involving an antecedent Fourth Amendment violation. Petitioners rely on our prior decisions concerning the scope of federal habeas review of a criminal conviction based upon a guilty plea. See, e. g., Brady v. United States, supra; Tollett v. Henderson, supra; Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U. S. 21 (1974); Lefkowitz v. Newsome, 420 U. S. 283 (1975); Menna v. New York, 423 U. S. 61 (1975) (per curiam). In Brady, we reaffirmed that a guilty plea is not simply “an admission of past conduct,” but a waiver of constitutional trial rights such as the right to call witnesses, to confront and cross-examine one’s accusers, and to trial by jury. Brady, supra, at 747-748, citing Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U. S. 238, 242 (1969). For this reason, a guilty plea “not only must be voluntary but must be [a] knowing, intelligent ac[t] done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.” Brady, supra, at 748. In Tollett v. Henderson, we concluded that an intelligent and voluntary plea of guilty generally bars habeas review of claims relating to the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred before the defendant pleaded guilty. We held that, because “[t]he focus of federal habeas inquiry is the nature of [defense counsel’s] advice and the voluntariness of the plea, not the existence as such of an antecedent constitutional infirmity,” 411U. S., at 266, Henderson was not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus on the basis of infirmities in the selection of the grand jury.
Our decisions subsequent to Tollett make clear that a plea of guilty does not bar the review in habeas corpus proceedings of all claims involving constitutional violations antecedent to a plea of guilty. A defendant who pleads guilty may seek to set aside a conviction based on prior constitutional claims which challenge “the very power of the State to bring the defendant into court to answer the charge brought against him.” Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U. S., at 30. Because a challenge to an indictment on grounds of prosecu-torial vindictiveness was such a claim, we concluded that a federal court may grant the writ of habeas corpus if it found merit in that constitutional challenge. Id., at 30-31. We also applied this principle in Menna v. New York, supra, in holding that a double jeopardy claim may be raised in federal habeas proceedings following a state-court conviction based on a plea of guilty. In Lefkowitz v. Newsome, supra, we held that Tollett does not apply to preclude litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim subsequent to a guilty plea when the State itself permits the claim to be raised on appeal.
Under our past decisions, as the District Court correctly recognized, a guilty plea results in the defendant’s loss of any meaningful opportunity he might otherwise have had to challenge the admissibility of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. It does not follow, however, that a guilty plea is a “waiver” of antecedent Fourth Amendment claims that may be given effect outside the confines of the criminal proceeding. The defendant’s rights under the Fourth Amendment are not among the trial rights that he necessarily waives when he knowingly and voluntarily pleads guilty. Moreover, our decisions provide no support for petitioners’ waiver theory for the simple reason that these decisions did not rest on any principle of waiver. The cases relied on by petitioners all involved challenges to the validity of a state criminal conviction. Our decisions in Tollett and the cases that followed simply recognized that when a defendant is convicted pursuant to his guilty plea rather than a trial, the validity of that conviction cannot be affected by an alleged Fourth Amendment violation because the conviction does not rest in any way on evidence that may have been improperly seized. State law treats a guilty plea as “a break in the chain of events [that] preceded it in the criminal process,” Tollett v. Henderson, supra, at 267. Therefore, the conclusion that a Fourth Amendment claim ordinarily may not be raised in a habeas proceeding following a plea of guilty does not rest on any notion of waiver, but rests on the simple fact that the claim is irrelevant to the constitutional validity of the conviction. As we explained in Menna v. New York, supra, at 62-63, n. 2:
“[W]aiver was not the basic ingredient of this line of cases. The point of these cases is that a counseled plea of guilty is an admission of factual guilt so reliable that, where voluntary and intelligent, it quite validly removes the issue of factual guilt from the case. In most cases, factual guilt is a sufficient basis for the State’s imposition of punishment. A guilty plea, therefore, simply renders irrelevant those constitutional violations not logically inconsistent with the valid establishment of factual guilt and which do not stand in the way of conviction, if factual guilt is validly established.” (Emphasis in original; citation omitted.)
It is therefore clear that Prosise did not waive his Fourth Amendment claims by pleading guilty in state court. The cases relied on by petitioners do not establish that a guilty plea is a waiver of Fourth Amendment claims. Moreover, the justifications for denying habeas review of Fourth Amendment claims following a guilty plea are inapplicable to an action under §1988. While Prosise’s Fourth Amendment claim is irrelevant to the constitutionality of his criminal conviction, and for that reason may not be the basis of a writ of habeas corpus, that claim is the crux of his § 1983 action which directly challenges the legality of police conduct.
Adoption of petitioners’ rule of preclusion would threaten important interests in preserving federal courts as an available forum for the vindication of constitutional rights. See England v. Medical Examiners, 375 U. S. 411, 416-417 (1964); McClellan v. Carland, 217 U. S. 268, 281 (1910); Willcox v. Consolidated Gas Co., 212 U. S. 19, 40 (1909); Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 404 (1821). Under petitioners’ rule, whether or not a state judgment would be accorded preclusive effect by state courts, a federal court would be barred from entertaining a § 1983 claim. The rule would require “an otherwise unwilling party to try [Fourth Amendment] questions to the hilt” and prevail in state court “in order to [preserve] the mere possibility” of later bringing a § 1983 claim in federal court. Brown v. Felsen, 442 U. S., at 135. Defendants who have pleaded guilty and who wish to bring a § 1983 claim would be forced to bring that claim in state court, if at all. Not only have petitioners failed to advance any compelling justification for a rule confining the litigation of constitutional claims to a state forum, but such a rule would be wholly contrary to one of the central concerns which motivated the enactment of § 1983, namely, the “grave congressional concern that the state courts had been deficient in protecting federal rights.” Allen v. McCurry, 449 U. S., at 98-99, citing Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U. S. 225, 241-242 (1972), and Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167, 180 (1961). See Patsy v. Florida Board of Regents, 457 U. S. 496 (1982).
HH <
We conclude that respondent’s conviction m state court does not preclude him from now seeking to recover damages under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 for an alleged Fourth Amendment violation that was never considered in the state proceedings. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
On July 17, 1979, the Supreme Court of Virginia denied respondent’s petition for a writ of error to review the trial court’s decision that his plea was voluntary and its refusal to permit the withdrawal of the plea.
In Metros v. United States District Court for the District of Colorado, 441 F. 2d 313 (1970), the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that a guilty plea to one count of possession of heroin must be given preclusive effect in a subsequent civil rights action against police officers who had searched the premises in which the narcotics were found. Other federal courts have concluded, however, that civil rights plaintiffs are not barred from litigating issues that could have been raised in prior proceedings in state court on a different cause of action. See, e. g., New Jersey Ed. Assn. v. Burke, 579 F. 2d 764, 772-774 (CA3 1978); Lombard v. Board of Ed. of City of New York, 502 F. 2d 631, 635-637 (CA2 1974). Since no motion to suppress evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds was ever raised at the state-court proceedings, this case does not present questions as to the scope of collateral estoppel with respect to particular issues that were litigated and decided at a criminal trial in state court. As we did in Allen v. McCurry, 449 U. S. 90, 93, n. 2 (1980), we now leave those questions to another day.
Title 42 U. S. C. § 1983 at the time in question provided:
“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.”
The Fourth Amendment provides:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Title 28 U. S. C. § 1738 provides, in relevant part, that the “Acts, records and judicial proceedings” of any State, Territory, or Possession “shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken.”
If the state courts would not give preclusive effect to the prior judgment, “the courts of the United States can accord it no greater efficacy” under § 1738. Union & Planters’ Bank v. Memphis, 189 U. S. 71, 75 (1903).
We have recognized various other conditions that must also be satisfied before giving preclusive effect to a state-court judgment. See generally Montana v. United States, 440 U. S. 147 (1979). For example, collateral-estoppel effect is not appropriate when “controlling facts or legal principles have changed significantly since the state-court judgment,” id., at 155, or when “special circumstances warrant an exception to the normal rules of preclusion,” ibid.; see, e. g., Porter & Dietsche, Inc. v. FTC, 605 F. 2d 294, 300 (CA7 1979); cf. Montana v. United States, supra, at 163 (preclusive effect to a state-court judgment may be inappropriate when the § 1983 claimant has not “ 'freely and without reservation submitted] his federal claims for decision by the state courts... and ha[d] them decided there... (quoting England v. Medical Examiners, 375 U. S. 411, 419 (1964)).
It is our practice to accept a reasonable construction of state law by the court of appeals “even if an examination of the state-law issue without such guidance might have justified a different conclusion.” Bishop v. Wood, 426 U. S. 341, 346 (1976). See id., at 346, n. 10. Because we would be particularly hesitant to consider creating a new federal rule of preclusion, however, where a state rule of preclusion may itself be given effect under 28 U. S. C. § 1738, we consider petitioners’ assertion that the Virginia courts would give collateral-estoppel effect to Prosise’s conviction. We emphasize, however, that, standing alone, a challenge to state-law determinations by the court of appeals will rarely constitute an appropriate subject of this Court’s review. See this Court’s Rule 17.
Like the federal courts, the courts of Virginia apply different rules of preclusion to matters arising in a suit between the same parties and based upon the same causes of action as those involved in the previous proceeding. Under the doctrine of res judicata, “ ‘the judgment in the former [action] is conclusive of the latter, not only as to every question which was decided, but also as to every other matter which the parties might have litigated and had determined, within the issues as they were made or tendered by the pleadings, or as incident to or essentially connected with the subject matter of the litigation, whether the same, as a matter of fact, were or were not considered.’” Eason v. Eason, 204 Va., at 350, 131 S. E. 2d, at 282, quoting Kemp v. Miller, 166 Va., at 674, 186 S. E., at 103-104. This doctrine does not apply, however, to a later action between different parties or to a later action between the same parties on a different claim or demand. Ibid.
The court below found that, even if the Fourth Amendment issue had been litigated and necessarily determined by the state court, that determination would not be given preclusive effect for an additional reason: under Virginia law, “‘a judgment rendered in a criminal prosecution, whether of conviction or acquittal, does not establish in a subsequent civil action the truth of the facts on which it is rendered.’ ” 667 F. 2d 1133, 1139 (CA4 1981), quoting Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Anderson, 200 Va. 385, 388, 105 S. E. 2d 869, 872 (1958). This general rule is based largely on the traditional principle that collateral estoppel may only be asserted by persons who were either a party or privy to the prior action. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Anderson, supra, at 389, 105 S. E. 2d, at 872. Although the doctrine of mutuality of parties has been abandoned in recent years by the courts of many jurisdictions, see, e. g., Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U. S. 322, 326-333 (1979); Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation, 402 U. S. 313 (1971), it has not been rejected by the courts of Virginia. Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. Bailey Lumber Co., 221 Va. 638, 272 S. E. 2d 217 (1980).
In one reported case, however, the highest court of the State has allowed a stranger to a criminal conviction to invoke the doctrine of collateral estop-pel in an action brought against him by the convicted person. Eagle, Star & British Dominions Ins. Co. v. Heller, 149 Va. 82, 140 S. E. 314 (1927). In Eagle, Star the court held that a convicted arsonist was foreclosed from seeking to recover the proceeds of a fire insurance policy. This exception to the mutuality doctrine was expressly limited to cases in which “the plaintiff who brings [the] action has committed the felony, and seeks to recover the fruit of his own crime.” Id., at 105, 140 S. E., at 321. That Eagle, Star announced only a narrow exception to the rule that a criminal conviction may not be given preclusive effect in a later action was confirmed by the court in Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Anderson, supra, at 389, 105 S. E. 2d, at 872. See also Smith v. New Dixie Lines, Inc., 201 Va. 466, 472-473, 111 S. E. 2d 434, 438-439 (1959). Since a § 1983 action is not a suit to “recover the fruit” of the plaintiff’s crime, the court below reasonably concluded that, under Virginia law, a criminal conviction would not be given preclusive effect in a § 1983 action with respect to any issues, including issues that were actually and necessarily decided.
Although petitioners also contend that a special federal rule of preclusion is necessary to preserve important federal interests in judicial administration, we fail to understand how any such interests justify the adoption of a rule that would bar the assertion of constitutional claims which have never been litigated. See Allen v. McCurry, 449 U. S., at 95, n. 7; cf. Patsy v. Florida Board of Regents, 457 U. S. 496, 501-502, 512-513, and n. 13 (1982); Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp., 456 U. S. 461, 476 (1982). Petitioners allude generally to the interests that underlie the principles of collateral estoppel, such as the elimination of “the expense, vexation, waste, and possible inconsistent results of duplicatory litigation.” Hoag v. New Jersey, 356 U. S. 464, 470 (1958). Yet these interests are quite simply inapplicable to this case. When a court accepts a defendant’s guilty plea, there is no adjudication whatsoever of any issues that may subsequently be the basis of a § 1983 claim. There
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case, like No. 1, Scales v. United States, ante, p. 203, was brought here to test the validity of a conviction under the membership clause of the Smith Act. 361 U. S. 813. The case comes to us from the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which affirmed petitioner's conviction in the District Court for the Western District of New York, after a jury trial. 262 F. 2d 501.
The only one of petitioner's points we need consider is his attack on the sufficiency of the evidence, since his statutory and constitutional challenges to the conviction are disposed of by our opinion in Scales; and consideration of his other contentions is rendered unnecessary by the view we take of his evidentiary challenge.
In considering that challenge we start from the premise that Smith Act offenses require rigorous standards of proof. Scales, ante, p. 230. We find that the record in this case, which was tried before our opinion issued in Yates v. United States, 354 U. S. 298, bears much of the infirmity that we found in the Yates record, and requires us to conclude that the evidence of illegal Party advocacy was insufficient to support this conviction.
A large part of the evidence adduced by the Government on that issue came from the witness Lautner, and the reading of copious excerpts from the “communist classics.” This evidence, to be sure, plentifully shows the Party’s teaching of abstract doctrine that revolution is an inevitable product of the “proletarian” effort to achieve communism in a capitalist society, but testimony as to happenings which might have lent that evidence to an inference of “advocacy of action” to accomplish that end during the period of the indictment, 1946-1954, or itself supported such an inference, is sparse indeed. Moreover, such testimony as there is of that nature was not broadly based, but was limited almost exclusively to Party doings in western New York, more especially in the cities of Rochester and Buffalo, the scene of petitioner’s principal Party activities. Further, the showing of illegal Party advocacy lacked the compelling quality which in Scales, ante, p. 203, was supplied by the petitioner’s own utterances and systematic course of conduct as a high Party official. We proceed to a summary of this testimony.
The witness Dietch described mainly episodes from his indoctrination as a member of the Rochester Young Communist League during the years 1935-1938. In that time he knew petitioner, with whom he had gone to high school, and testified that petitioner, then a youth, was an active and convinced member of the League. Apart from those early years, Dietch’s testimony as to the Party and the petitioner referred to one other possibly relevant episode, when, in 1951, he obtained for the Party at petitioner’s request two pieces of special printing equipment for which petitioner paid $100 and $200. However, this episode is deprived of significance when it appears from the witness’ testimony that petitioner explained to him at the time that pressure brought to bear on the Party had made it difficult for it to get its printing done by conventional commercial means.
The witness Geraldine Hicks had joined the Party in 1943 at the request of the F. B. I. and continued to be involved with it until 1953. She knew petitioner in connection with his work as Chairman of the Erie County Communist Party from 1946 until 1950. Her testimony related to classes and meetings which she attended in the Buffalo area, where the “communist classics” were used for teaching purposes, Extensive passages from these works were read into evidence. She also testified as to the importance attributed by the local Party to its “industrial concentration” work and to its recruitment of workers in those industries as well as to the importance attributed to the recruitment of Negroes.
The witness Chatley, who was a bus driver during the period of his Communist Party membership from 1949 onwards, testified to his contacts with petitioner and other Party members in the Buffalo area. He testified to Party teachings as to the importance of receiving solid support from the labor unions. He was given various items of literature such as the History of the Russian Revolution and The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky, which latter dealt with an early Communist who had been singled out for condemnation because of his views that communism could be achieved ultimately by peaceful means. He was told by petitioner that “if I would re-read the book[s], most of my questions would be answered. He said if there were any points I did not understand he would be happy to clear them up at a later visit.” Perhaps the most significant item of Chatley’s testimony dealt with an interview with petitioner, at which Chatley was requested to hide out a Party member who was fleeing the F. B. I. in connection with “what the newspapers called this Atom Spy Ring business.” So far as the record reveals, the plans never progressed beyond this request. The petitioner had also told Chat-ley that the Federal Government was building concentration camps:
“. . . He said they are not building them for ornamental purposes. He said ‘They are going to fill them with our people, starting with the leaders.’. . . He said that he expected when they were ready he would be one of the first people to go. He said the Federal Government would continue with these camps and fill them with a lot of people, but the time would come when there would be a show-down, working people will stand just so much. It might take several years, it will result in bad times, but in the end it will result in a turn in the country to Marxism and Leninism. He said then his part might be in it, he was willing to suffer anything to bring it to that glorious end.”
Certainly the most damaging testimony came from the witness Regan, who as a government agent and Party member from 1947 in the Buffalo-Rochester. area gathered considerable information on the Party’s “industrial concentration” program in that area. Regan, at the request of petitioner, attended a Party meeting in New York City on creating a Party commission in the United Auto Workers. The conference concerned the penetration of the United Auto Workers, and plans were made for getting people into various shops in automobile plants in the State, who could later assume positions of leadership in the union. At a later date petitioner also discussed the penetration of an automobile plant in the area by Party members sent up from New York City. Regan also received a pamphlet, but not from the petitioner, dealing with the concentration program in the steel industry. The pamphlet stated at one point:
“1. Three basic industries, steel, railroad, and mining. These are basis [sic] to the National economy, that is if any one or all three are shut down by strike our economy is paralyzed. It is necessary for a Marxist revolutionary party to be rooted in these industries.”
In 1949 Regan attended a conference in Rochester at which the petitioner spoke: “He discussed concentration work, and he said the task of the Party was to build the Party within the shop in Buffalo ... he specifically mentioned both steel and Westinghouse Electric.” Another speaker said that “steel industry was a basic industry, by basic industry he said the entire section of industry within the country depended on steel.” Regan also ■attended a conference in New York City at which petitioner spoke:
“. . . He said a Lenin method of work within the shop was to decide upon the particular dependent within the shop, that the shop as a rule depended upon, to suspend production, it was the job of every communist to know the people, executives and product of the company, if possible to direct his attention on the key department, better still, to get a job in the key department.”
Several other passages in Regan’s testimony should be adverted to for their bearing on the tone of the record before us. Speaking of the war in Korea, Regan testified that the petitioner had said at the conference of the Upstate District of the Party in 1950:
“. . . the war . . . was caused by an aggressive action of the United States, American troops would follow Wall Street policy. He said it is possible for this to break out in other parts of the world. He mentioned the near East.
“Q. Is that all?
“A. Yes.”
No effort was made to link up this conference with particularly trusted Party members, but it does appear that it was at this conference that plans were laid for building a Communist Party club “on the railroad.”
Regan also testified to a remark made at another Party conference by a lecturer that a “social democrat was an evolutionist who waited for socialism where the Communist Party would achieve socialism through revolutions.” At this same meeting the lecturer recounted an incident that had occurred at a class she had once taught in New Rochelle, New York, at an unspecified time:
. . She said a person at this class, they were discussing the Soviet Union, asked her would it be possible for him to own twenty pairs of shoes in the Soviet Union. She made the statement he was the kind of a guy they hoped to shoot some day.”
The witness recalled a similar intemperate remark by the petitioner during a meeting in 1947:
“Lumpkin [a Party member] was talking about a visit to his home by a local newspaper reporter. He said the reporter came to his home. They let him in and answered a lot of questions. . . .”
“John Noto said Lumpkin should never let the reporter into the house. Should not have answered any questions. He said ‘Sometime I will see the time we can stand a person like this S. O. B. against the wall and shoot him.’ ”
The witness Greenberg testified largely about the Party program in the upstate area as to setting up printing and mimeographing equipment in case commercial channels were cut off or the Party was forced underground; and three other witnesses testified-briefly to the effect that they had known petitioner when he had moved to Newark, New Jersey, and obtained a job under an assumed name as a helper or stockkeeper in the Goodyear Rubber Products Corporation factory, in connection with which he used a false Social Security number.
Finally, there was testimony through the witness Lautner as to the Party’s underground organization in northern New York, including petitioner’s participation therein as one of the three Party members in charge.
We must consider this evidence in the light most favorable to the Government to see whether it would support the conclusion that the Party engaged in the advocacy “not of . . . mere abstract doctrine of forcible overthrow, but of action to that end, by the use of language reasonably and ordinarily calculated to incite persons to . . . action” immediately or in the future. Yates v. United States, supra, at 316. In that case we said:
“. . . The essence of the Dennis holding was that indoctrination of a group in preparation for future violent action, as well as exhortation to immediate action, by advocacy found to be directed to ‘action for the accomplishment’ of forcible overthrow, to violence as ‘a rule or principle of action/ and employing ‘language of incitement’... is not constitutionally protected .... This is quite a different thing from the view of the District Court here that mere doctrinal justification of forcible overthrow, if engaged in with intent to accomplish overthrow, is punishable per se under the Smith Act. That sort of advocacy, even though uttered with the hope that it may ultimately lead to violent revolution, is too remote from concrete action to be regarded as the kind of indoctrination preparatory to action which was condemned in Dennis. As one of the concurring opinions in Dennis put it: ‘Throughout our decisions there has recurred a distinction between the statement of an idea which may prompt its hearers to take unlawful action, and advocacy that such action be taken.’ ” Id., at 321-322.
The great bulk of the evidence in this record seems to us to come within the purview of the first of the contrasted alternatives elaborated in the concurring opinion in Dennis v. United States, 341 U. S. 494, 545, and referred to in the passage just quoted. We held in Yates, and we reiterate now, that the mere abstract teaching of Communist theory, including the teaching of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence, is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action. There must be some substantial direct or circumstantial evidence of a call to violence now or in the future which is both sufficiently strong and sufficiently pervasive to lend color to the otherwise ambiguous theoretical material regarding Communist Party teaching, and to justify the inference that such a call to violence may fairly be imputed to the Party as a whole, and not merely to some narrow segment of it.
Surely the offhand remarks that certain individuals hostile to the Party would one day be shot cannot demonstrate more than the venomous Or spiteful attitude of the Party towards its enemies, and might indicate what could be expected from the Party if it should ever succeed to power. The “industrial concentration” program, as to which the witness Regan testified in some detail, , does indeed come closer to the kind of concrete and particular program on which a criminal conviction in this sort of case must be based. But in examining that evidence it appears to us that, in the context of this record, this too fails to establish that the Communist Party was an organization which presently advocated violent overthrow of the Government now or in the future, for that is what must be proven. The most that can be said is that the evidence as to that program might justify an inference that the leadership of the Party was preparing the way for a situation in which future acts of sabotage might be facilitated, but there is no evidence that such acts of sabotage were presently advocated; and it is present advocacy, and not an intent to advocate in the future or a conspiracy to advocate in the future once a groundwork has been laid, which is an element of the crime under the membership clause. To permit an inference of present advocacy from evidence showing at best only a purpose or conspiracy to advocate in the future would be to allow the jury to blur the lines of distinction between the various offenses punishable under the Smith Act.
The kind of evidence which we found in Scales sufficient to support the jury’s verdict of present illegal Party advocacy is lacking here in any adequately substantial degree. It need hardly be said that it is upon the particular evidence in a particular record that a particular defendant must be judged, and not upon the evidence in some other record or upon what may be supposed to be the tenets of the Communist Party. See Yates, supra, at 330.
Although our conclusion renders unnecessary consideration of the evidence as to petitioner’s personal criminal purpose to bring about the overthrow of the Government by force and violence, a further word may be desirable. While evidence of the industrial concentration program, in which petitioner was active, does not alone justify an inference of the Party’s present advocacy of violent overthrow, it may very well tend to show the quite different element of the petitioner’s own purpose. Even though it is not enough to sustain a conviction that the Party has engaged in “mere doctrinal justification of forcible overthrow . . . [even] with the intent to accomplish overthrow,” Yates, supra, at 321, it would seem that such a showing might be of weight in meeting the requirement that the particular defendant in a membership clause prosecution had the requisite criminal intent. But it should also be said that this element of the membership crime, like its others, must be judged strictissimi juris, for otherwise there is a danger that one in sympathy with the legitimate aims of such an organization, but not specifically intending to accomplish them by resort to violence, might be punished for his adherence to lawful and constitutionally protected purposes, because of other and unprotected purposes which he does not necessarily share.
In view of our conclusion as to the insufficiency of the evidence as to illegal Party advocacy, the judgment of the Court of Appeals must be
Reversed.
Me. Justice Brennan and The Chief Justice would remand to the District Court with direction to that court to dismiss the indictment. For the reasons expressed in Me. Justice Brennan’s dissent in Scales v. United States, ante, p. 278, they believe that this prosecution was barred by § 4 (f) of the Internal Security Act. They also believe that the dismissal is required because of the insufficiency of the evidence.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice O’Connor
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion,
in which The Chief Justice, Justice Souter, and Justice Ginsburg join.
In Connick v. Myers, 461 U. S. 138 (1983), we set forth a test for determining whether speech by a government employee may, consistently with the First Amendment, serve as a basis for disciplining or discharging that employee. In this case, we decide whether the Connick test should be applied to what the government employer thought was said, or to what the trier of fact ultimately determines to have been said.
I
This case arises out- of a conversation that respondent Cheryl Churchill had on January 16, 1987, with Melanie Perkins-Graham. Both Churchill and Perkins-Graham were nurses working at McDonough District Hospital; Churchill was in the obstetrics department, and Perkins-Graham was considering transferring to that department. The conversation took place at work during a dinner break. Petitioners heard about it and fired Churchill, allegedly because of it. There is, however, a dispute about what Churchill actually said, and therefore about whether petitioners were constitutionally permitted to fire Churchill for her statements.
The conversation was overheard in part by two other nurses, Mary Lou Ballew and Jean Welty, and by Dr. Thomas Koch, the clinical head of obstetrics. A few days later, Ballew told Cynthia Waters, Churchill’s supervisor, about the incident. According to Ballew, Churchill took “‘the cross trainee into the kitchen for... at least 20 minutes to talk about [Waters] and how bad things are in [obstetrics] in general.’” 977 F. 2d 1114, 1118 (CA7 1992). Ballew said that Churchill’s statements led Perkins-Graham to no longer be interested in switching to the department. Supplemental App. of Defendants-Appellees in No. 91-2288 (CA7), p, 60.
Shortly after this, Waters met with Ballew a second time for confirmation of Ballew’s initial report. Ballew said that Churchill “was knocking the department” and that “in general [Churchill] was saying what a bad place [obstetrics] is to work.” Ballew said she heard Churchill say Waters “was trying to find reasons to fire her.” Ballew also said Churchill described a patient complaint for which Waters had supposedly wrongly blamed Churchill. Id., at 67-68.
Waters, together with petitioner Kathleen Davis, the hospital’s vice president of nursing, also met with Perkins-Graham, who told them that Churchill “had indeed said unkind and inappropriate negative things about [Waters].” Id., at 228. Also, according to Perkins-Graham, Churchill mentioned a negative evaluation that Waters had given Churchill, which arose out of an incident in which Waters had cited Churchill for an insubordinate remark. Ibid. The evaluation stated that Churchill “ ‘promotes an unpleasant atmosphere and hinders constructive communication and cooperation,’” 977 F. 2d, at 1118, and “‘exhibits negative behavior towards [Waters] and [Waters’] leadership through her actions and body language’ the evaluation said Churchill’s work was otherwise satisfactory, id., at 1116. Churchill allegedly told Perkins-Graham that she and Waters had discussed the evaluation, and that Waters “wanted to wipe the slate clean... but [Churchill thought] this wasn’t possible.” Supplemental App. of Defendants-Appellees in No. 91-2288, at 228. Churchill also allegedly told Perkins-Graham “that just in general things were not good in OB and hospital administration was responsible.” Id., at 229. Churchill specifically mentioned Davis, saying Davis “was ruining MDH.” Ibid. Perkins-Graham told Waters that she knew Davis and Waters “could not tolerate that kind of negativism.” Ibid.
Churchill’s version of the conversation is different. For several months, Churchill had been concerned about the hospital’s “cross-training” policy, under which nurses from one department could work in another when their usual location was overstaffed. Churchill believed this policy threatened patient care because it was designed not to train nurses but to cover staff shortages, and she had complained about this to Davis and Waters. According to Churchill, the conversation with Perkins-Graham primarily concerned the cross-training policy. 977 F. 2d, at 1118. Churchill denies that she said some of what Ballew and Perkins-Graham allege she said. She does admit she criticized Davis, saying her staffing policies threatened to “ruin” the hospital because they “‘seemed to be impeding nursing care.’” Ibid. She claims she actually defended Waters and encouraged Perkins-Graham to transfer to obstetrics. Ibid.
Koch’s and Welty’s recollections of the conversation match Churchill’s. Id., at 1122. Davis and Waters, however, never talked to Koch or Welty about this, and they did not talk to Churchill until the time they told her she was fired. Moreover, Churchill claims, Ballew was biased against Churchill because of an incident in which Ballew apparently made an error and Churchill had to cover for her. Brief for Respondents 9, n. 12.
After she was discharged, Churchill filed an internal grievance. The president of the hospital, petitioner Stephen Hopper, met with Churchill in regard to this and heard her side of the story. App. to Pet. for Cert. 75-77. He then reviewed Waters’ and Davis’ written reports of their conversations with Ballew and Perkins-Graham, and had Bernice Magin, the hospital’s vice president of human resources, interview Ballew one more time. Supplemental App. of Defendants-Appellees in No. 91-2288, at 108, 139-142. After considering all this, Hopper rejected Churchill’s grievance.
Churchill then sued under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. §1983, claiming that the firing violated her First Amendment rights because her speech was protected under Con-nick v. Myers, 461 U. S. 138 (1983). In May 1991, the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois granted summary judgment to petitioners. The court held that neither version of the conversation was protected under Connick: Regardless of whose story was accepted, the speech was not on a matter of public concern, and even if it was on a matter of public concern, its potential for disruption nonetheless stripped it of First Amendment protection. Therefore, the court held, management could fire Churchill for the conversation with impunity. App. to Pet. for Cert. 45-49.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed. 977 F. 2d 1114 (1992). The court held that Churchill’s speech, viewed in the light most favorable to her, was protected speech under the Connick test: It was on a matter of public concern — “the hospital’s [alleged] violation of state nursing regulations as well as the quality and level of nursing care it provides its patients,” id., at 1122 — and it was not disruptive, id., at 1124.
The court also concluded that the inquiry must turn on what the speech actually. was, not on what the employer thought it was. “If the employer chooses to discharge the employee without sufficient knowledge of her protected speech as a result of an inadequate investigation into the employee’s conduct,” the court held, “the employer runs the risk of eventually being required to remedy any wrongdoing whether it was deliberate or accidental.” Id., at 1127 (footnote omitted).
We granted certiorari, 509 U. S. 903 (1993), to resolve a conflict among the Circuits on this issue. Compare the decision below with Atcherson v. Siebenmann, 605 F. 2d 1058 (CA8 1979); Wulf v. Wichita, 883 F. 2d 842 (CA10 1989); Sims v. Metropolitan Dade County, 972 F. 2d 1230 (CA11 1992).
II
A
There is no dispute in this case about when speech by a government employee is protected by the First Amendment: To be protected, the speech must be on a matter of public concern, and the employee’s interest in expressing herself on this matter must not be outweighed by any injury the speech could cause to “ ‘the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.’” Connick, supra, at 142 (quoting Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist. 205, Will Cty., 391 U. S. 563, 568 (1968)). It is also agreed that it is the court’s task to apply the Connick test to the facts. 461 U. S., at 148, n. 7, and 150, n. 10.
The dispute is over how the factual basis for applying the test — what the speech was, in what tone it was delivered, what the listener’s reactions were, see id., at 151-153 — is to be determined. Should the court apply the Connick test to the speech as the government employer found it to be, or should it ask the jury to determine the facts for itself? The Court of Appeals held that the employer’s factual conclusions were irrelevant, and that the jury should engage in its own factfinding. Petitioners argue that the employer’s factual conclusions should be dispositive. Respondents take a middle course: They suggest that the court should accept the employer’s factual conclusions, but only if those conclusions were arrived at reasonably, see Brief for Respondents 39, something they say did not happen here.
We agree that it is important to ensure not only that the substantive First Amendment standards are sound, but also that they are applied through reliable procedures. This is why we have often held some procedures — a particular allocation of the burden of proof, a particular quantum of proof, a particular type of appellate review, and so on — to be constitutionally required in proceedings that may penalize protected speech. See Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U. S. 51, 58-60 (1965) (government must bear burden of proving that speech is unprotected); Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513,526 (1958) (same); Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U. S. 767, 775-778 (1986) (libel plaintiff must bear burden of proving that speech is false); Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U. S. 496, 510 (1991) (actual malice must be proved by clear and convincing evidence); Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 U. S. 485, 503-511 (1984) (appellate court must make independent judgment about presence of actual malice).
These cases establish a basic First Amendment principle: Government action based on protected speech may under some circumstances violate the First Amendment even if the government actor honestly believes the speech is unprotected. And though Justice & alia suggests that this principle be limited to licensing schemes and to “deprivation[s] of the freedom of speech specifically through the judicial process,” post, at 687 (emphasis in original), we do not think the logic of the cases supports such a limitation. Speech can be chilled and punished by administrative action as much as by judicial processes; in no case have we asserted or even implied the contrary. In fact, in Speiser v. Randall, we struck down procedures, on the grounds that they were insufficiently protective of free speech, which involved both administrative and judicial components. Speiser, like this case, dealt with a government decision to deny a speaker certain benefits — in Speiser a tax exemption, in this case a government job — based on what the speaker said. Our holding there did not depend on the deprivation taking place “specifically through the judicial process,” and we cannot see how the result could have been any different had the process been entirely administrative, with no judicial review. We cannot sweep aside Speiser and the other cases cited above as easily as Justice Scalia proposes.
Nonetheless, not every procedure that may safeguard protected speech is constitutionally mandated. True, the procedure adopted by the Court of Appeals may lower the chance of protected speech being erroneously punished. A speaker is more protected if she has two opportunities to be vindicated — first by the employer’s investigation and then by the jury — than just one. But each procedure involves a different mix of administrative burden, risk of erroneous punishment of protected speech, and risk of erroneous exculpation of unprotected speech. Though the First Amendment creates a strong presumption against punishing protected speech even inadvertently, the balance need not always be struck in that direction. We have never, for instance, required proof beyond a reasonable doubt in civil cases where First Amendment interests are at stake, though such a requirement would protect speech more than the alternative standards would. Compare, e. g., California ex rel. Cooper v. Mitchell Brothers’ Santa Ana Theater, 454 U. S. 90,93 (1981) (per curiam), with McKinney v. Alabama, 424 U. S. 669, 686 (1976) (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment in part). Likewise, the possibility that defamation liability would chill even true speech has not led us to require an actual malice standard in all libel cases. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U. S. 749, 761 (1985) (plurality opinion); Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U. S. 323 (1974). Nor has the possibility that overbroad regulations may chill commercial speech convinced us to extend the overbreadth doctrine into the commercial speech area. Bates v. State Bar of Ariz., 433 U. S. 350, 380-381 (1977).
We have never set forth a general test to determine when a procedural safeguard is required by the First Amendment — -just as we have never set forth a general test to determine what constitutes a compelling state interest, see Boos v. Barry, 485 U. S. 312, 324 (1988), or what categories of speech are so lacking in value that they fall outside the protection of the First Amendment, New York v. Ferber, 458 U. S. 747, 763-764 (1982), or many other matters — and we do not purport to do so now. But though we agree with Justice Scalia that the lack of' such a test is inconvenient, see post, at 687-688, this does not relieve us of our responsibility to decide the case that is before us today. Both Justice Scalia and we agree that some procedural requirements are mandated by the First Amendment and some are not. See post, at 686. None of us have discovered a general principle to determine where the line is to be drawn. See post, at 686-688. We must therefore reconcile ourselves to answering the question on a case-by-case basis, at least until some workable general rule emerges.
Accordingly, all we say today is that the propriety of a proposed procedure must turn on the particular context in which the question arises — on the cost of the procedure and the relative magnitude and constitutional significance of the risks it would decrease and increase. And to evaluate these factors here we have to return to the issue we dealt with in Connick and in the cases that came before it: What is it about the government’s role as employer that gives it a freer hand in regulating the speech of its employees than it has in regulating the speech of the public at large?
B
We have never explicitly answered this question, though we have always assumed that its premise is correct — that the government as employer indeed has far broader powers than does the government as sovereign. See, e. g., Pickering, 391 U. S., at 568; Civil Service Comm’n v. Letter Carri ers, 413 U. S. 548, 564 (1973); Connick, 461 U. S., at 147. This assumption is amply borne out by considering the practical realities of government employment, and the many situations in which, we believe, most observers would agree that the government must be able to restrict its employees’ speech.
To begin with, even many of the most fundamental maxims of our First Amendment jurisprudence cannot reasonably be applied to speech by government employees. The First Amendment demands a tolerance of “verbal tumult, discord, and even offensive utterance,” as “necessary side effects of... the process of open debate,” Cohen v. California, 403 U. S. 15, 24-25 (1971). But we have never expressed doubt that a government employer may bar its employees from using Mr. Cohen’s offensive utterance to members of the public or to the people with whom they work. “Under the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea,” Gertz, supra, at 339; the “fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones,” Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, 375 (1927) (Brandéis, J., concurring). But when an employee counsels her co-workers to do their job in a way with which the public employer disagrees, her managers may tell her to stop, rather than relying on counterspeech. The First Amendment reflects the “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 270 (1964). But though a private person is perfectly free to uninhibitedly and robustly criticize a state governor’s legislative program, we have never suggested that the Constitution bars the governor from firing a high-ranking deputy for doing the same thing. Cf. Branti v. Finkel, 445 U. S. 507, 518 (1980). Even something as close to the core of the First Amendment as participation in political campaigns may be prohibited to government employees. Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U. S. 601 (1973); Letter Carriers, supra; Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U. S. 75 (1947).
Government employee speech must be treated differently with regard to procedural requirements as well. For example, speech restrictions must generally precisely define the speech they target. Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U. S. 360, 367-368 (1964); Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U. S. 46, 55 (1988). Yet surely a public employer may, consistently with the First Amendment, prohibit its employees from being “rude to customers,” a standard almost certainly too vague when applied to the public at large. Cf. Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U. S. 134, 158-162 (1974) (plurality opinion) (upholding a regulation that allowed discharges for speech that hindered the “efficiency of the service”); id., at 164 (Powell, J., concurring in part and concurring in result in part) (agreeing on this point).
Likewise, we have consistently given greater deference to government predictions of harm used to justify restriction of employee speech than to predictions of harm used to justify restrictions on the speech of the public at large. New of the examples we have discussed involve tangible, present interference with the agency’s operation. The danger in them is mostly speculative. One could make a respectable argument that political activity by government employees is generally not harmful, see Public Workers v. Mitchell, swpra, at 99; or that high officials should allow more public dissent by their subordinates, see Connick, supra, at 168-169 (Brennan, J., dissenting); Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, 103 Stat. 16, or that even in a government workplace the free market of ideas is superior to a command economy. But we have given substantial weight to government employers’ reasonable predictions of disruption, even when the speech involved is on a matter of public concern, and even though when the government is acting as sovereign our review of legislative predictions of harm is considerably less deferential. Compare, e. g., Connick, supra, at 151-152; Letter Carriers, supra, at 566-567, with Sable Communications of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U. S. 115,129 (1989); Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397, 409 (1989). Similarly, we have refrained from intervening in government employer decisions that are based on speech that is of entirely private concern. Doubtless some such speech is sometimes nondisruptive; doubtless it is sometimes of value to the speakers and the listeners. But we have declined to question government employers’ decisions on such matters. Connick, supra, at 146-149.
This does not, of course, show that the First Amendment should play no role in government employment decisions. Government employees are often in the best position to know what ails the agencies for which they work; public debate may gain much from their informed opinions. Pickering, supra, at 572. And a government employee, like any citizen, may have a strong, legitimate interest in speaking out on public matters. In many such situations the government may have to make a substantial showing that the speech is, in fact, likely to be disruptive before it may be punished. See, e. g., Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U. S. 378, 388 (1987); Connick, supra, at 152; Pickering, supra, at 569-571. Moreover, the government may certainly choose to give additional protections to its employees beyond what is mandated by the First Amendment, out of respect for the values underlying the First Amendment, values central to our social order as well as our legal system. See, e. g., Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, supra.
But the above examples do show that constitutional review of government employment decisions must rest on different principles than review of speech restraints imposed by the government as sovereign. The restrictions discussed above are allowed not just because the speech interferes with the government’s operation. Speech by private people can do the same, but this does not allow the government to suppress it.
Rather, the extra power the government has in this area comes from the nature of the government’s mission as employer. Government agencies are charged by law with doing particular tasks. Agencies hire employees to help do those tasks as effectively and efficiently as possible. When someone who is paid a salary so that she will contribute to an agency’s effective operation begins to do or say things that detract from the agency’s effective operation, the government employer must have some power to restrain her. The reason the governor may, in the example given above, fire the deputy is not that this dismissal would somehow be narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest. It is that the governor and the governor’s staff have a job to do, and the governor justifiably feels that a quieter subordinate would allow them to do this job more effectively.
The key to First Amendment analysis of government employment decisions, then, is this: The government’s interest in achieving its goals as effectively and efficiently as possible is elevated from a relatively subordinate interest when it acts as sovereign to a significant one when it acts as employer. The government cannot restrict the speech of the public at large just in the name of efficiency. But where the government is employing someone for the very purpose of effectively achieving its goals, such restrictions may well be appropriate.
C
1
The Court of Appeals’ decision, we believe, gives insufficient weight to the government’s interest in efficient employment decisionmaking. In other First Amendment contexts the need to safeguard possibly protected speech may indeed outweigh the government’s efficiency interests. See, e.g., Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U. S. 51 (1965); Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S., at 526. But where the government is acting as employer, its efficiency concerns should, as we discussed above, be assigned a greater value.
The problem with the Court of Appeals’ approach — under which the facts to which the Connick test is applied are determined by the judicial factfinder — is that it would force the government employer to come to its factual conclusions through procedures that substantially mirror the evidentiary rules used in court. The government manager would have to ask not what conclusions she, as an experienced professional, can draw from the circumstances, but rather what conclusions a jury would later draw. If she relies on hearsay, or on what she knows about the accused employee’s character, she must be aware that this evidence might not be usable in court. If she knows one party is, in her personal experience, more credible than another, she must realize that the jury will not share that personal experience. If she thinks the alleged offense is so egregious that it is proper to discipline the accused employee even though the evidence is ambiguous, she must consider that a jury might decide the other way.
But employers, public and private, often do rely on hearsay, on past similar conduct, on their personal knowledge of people’s credibility, and on other factors that the judicial process ignores. Such reliance may sometimes be the most effective way for the employer to avoid future recurrences of improper and disruptive conduct. What works best in a judicial proceeding may not be appropriate in the employment context. If one employee accuses another of misconduct, it is reasonable for a government manager to credit the allegation more if it is consistent with what the manager knows of the character of the accused. Likewise, a manager may legitimately want to discipline an employee based on complaints by patrons that the employee has been rude, even though these complaints are hearsay.
It is true that these practices involve some risk of erroneously punishing protected speech. The government may certainly choose to adopt other practices, by law or by contract. But we do not believe that the First Amendment requires it to do so. Government employers should be allowed to use personnel procedures that differ from the evidentiary rules used by courts, without fear that these differences will lead to liability.
2
On the other hand, we do not believe that the court must apply the Connick test only to the facts as the employer thought them to be, without considering the reasonableness of the employer’s conclusions. Even in situations where courts have recognized the special expertise and special needs of certain decisionmakers, the deference to their conclusions has never been complete. Cf. New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U. S. 325, 342-343 (1985); United States v. Leon, 468 U. S. 897, 914 (1984); Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U. S. 474, 490-491 (1951). It is necessary that the decisionmaker reach its conclusion about what was said in good faith, rather than as a pretext; but it does not follow that good faith is sufficient. Justice Scalia is right in saying that we have often held various laws to require only an inquiry into the decisionmaker’s intent, see post, at 690-691, but, as discussed supra in Part II-A, this has not been our view of the First Amendment.
We think employer decisionmaking will not be unduly burdened by having courts look to the facts as the employer reasonably found them to be. It may be unreasonable, for example, for the employer to come to a conclusion based on no evidence at all. Likewise, it may be unreasonable for an employer to act based on extremely weak evidence when strong evidence is clearly available — if, for instance, an employee is accused of writing an improper letter to the editor, and instead of just reading the letter, the employer decides what it said based on unreliable hearsay.
If an employment action is based on what an employee supposedly said, and a reasonable supervisor would recognize that there is a substantial likelihood that what was actually said was protected, the manager must tread with a certain amount of care. This need not be the care with which trials, with their rules of evidence and procedure, are conducted. It should, however, be the care that a reasonable manager would use before making an employment decision — discharge, suspension, reprimand, or whatever else— of the sort involved in the particular case. Justice Scalia correctly points out that such care is normally not constitutionally required unless the employee has a protected property interest in her job, post, at 688; see also Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U. S. 564, 576-578 (1972); but we believe that the possibility of inadvertently punishing someone for exercising her First Amendment rights makes such care necessary.
Of course, there will often be situations in which reasonable employers would disagree about who is to be believed, or how much investigation needs to be done, or how much evidence is needed to come to a particular conclusion. In those situations, many different courses of action will necessarily be reasonable. Only procedures outside the range of what a reasonable manager would use may be condemned as unreasonable.
Petitioners argue that Mt. Healthy City Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U. S. 274 (1977), forecloses a reasonableness test, and holds instead that the First Amendment was not violated unless “‘the defendant^’] intent [was] to violate the plaintiff[’s] constitutional rights.’” Brief for Petitioners 25; see also post, at 690 (Scalia, J., dissenting). Justice Scalia makes a similar argument based on Pickering, Con-nick, and Perry, which alluded to the impropriety of management “retaliation” for protected speech. Post, at 689. But in all those cases the employer assertedly knew the true content of the employee’s protected speech, and fired the employee in part because of it. In none of them did we have occasion to decide what should happen if the defendants hold an erroneous and unreasonable belief about what plaintiff said. These cases cannot be read as foreclosing an argument that they never dealt with. United States v. L. A. Tucker Truck Lines, Inc., 344 U. S. 33, 38 (1952).
3
We disagree with Justice Stevens’ contention that the test we adopt “provides less protection for a fundamental constitutional right than the law ordinarily provides for less exalted rights.” Post, at 695. We have never held that it is a violation of the Constitution for a government employer to discharge an employee based on substantively incorrect information. Where an employee has a property interest in her job, the only protection we have found the Constitution gives her is a right to adequate procedure. And an at-will government employee — such as Churchill apparently was, App. to Pet. for Cert. 70 — generally has no claim based on the Constitution at all.
Of course, an employee may be able to challenge the substantive accuracy of the employer’s factual conclusions under state contract law, or under some state statute or common-law cause of action. In some situations, the employee may even have a federal statutory claim. See NLRB v. Burnup & Sims, Inc., 379 U. S. 21 (1964). Likewise, the State or Federal Governments may, if they choose, provide similar protection to people fired because of their speech. But this protection is not mandated by the Constitution.
The one pattern from which our approach does diverge is the broader protection normally given to people in their relationship with the government as sovereign. See, e. g., New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S., at 279-280, cited post, at 696, 699 (Stevens, J., dissenting). But the reasons for this are those discussed supra in Part II — B: “[0]ur ‘profound national commitment’ to the freedom of speech,” post, at 699 (Stevens, J., dissenting), must of necessity operate differently when the government acts as employer rather than sovereign.
Ill
Applying the foregoing to this case, it is clear that if petitioners really did believe Perkins-Graham’s and Ballew’s story, and fired Churchill because of it, they must win. Their belief, based on the investigation they conducted, would have been entirely reasonable. After getting the initial report from Ballew, who overheard the conversation, Waters and Davis approached and interviewed Perkins-Graham, and then interviewed Ballew again for confirmation. In response to Churchill’s grievance, Hopper met directly with Churchill to hear her side of the story, and instructed Magin to interview Ballew one more time. Management can spend only so much of their time on any one employment decision. By the end of the termination process, Hopper, who made the final decision, had the word of two trusted employees, the endorsement of those employees’ reliability by three hospital managers, and the benefit of a face-to-face meeting with the employee he fired. With that in hand, a reasonable manager could have concluded that no further time needed to be taken. As respondents themselves point out, “if the belief an employer forms supporting its adverse personnel action is ‘reasonable,’ an employer has no need to investigate further.” Brief for Respondents 39.
And under the Connick test, Churchill’s speech as reported by Perkins-Graham and Ballew was unprotected. Even if Churchill’s criticism of cross-training reported by Perkins-Graham and Ballew was speech on a matter of public concern — something we need not decide — the potential disruptiveness of the speech as reported was enough to outweigh whatever First Amendment value it might have had. According to Ballew, Churchill’s speech may have substantially dampened Perkins-Graham’s interest in working in obstetrics. Discouraging people from coming to work for a department certainly qualifies as disruption. Moreover, Perkins-Graham perceived Churchill’s statements about Waters to be “unkind and inappropriate,” and told management that she knew they could not continue to “tolerate that kind of negativism” from Churchill. This is strong evidence that Churchill’s complaining, if not dealt with, threatened to undermine management’s authority in Perkins-Graham’s eyes. And finally, Churchill’s statement, as reported by Perkins-Graham, that it “wasn’t possible” to “wipe the slate clean” between her and Waters could certainly make management doubt Churchill’s future effectiveness. As a matter of law, this potential disruptiveness was enough to outweigh whatever First Amendment value the speech might have had.
This is so even if, as Churchill suggests, Davis and Waters were “[deliberately [i]ndifferent,” Brief for Respondents 31, to the possibility that much of the rest of the conversation was solely about cross-training. So long as Davis and Waters discharged Churchill only for the part of the speech that was either not on a matter of public concern, or on a matter of public concern but disruptive, it is irrelevant whether the rest of the speech was, unbeknownst to them, both on a matter of public concern and nondisruptive. The Connick test is to be applied to the speech for which Churchill was fired. Cf. Connick, 461 U. S., at 149 (evaluating the disruptiveness of part of plaintiff’s speech because that part was “upon a matter of public concern and contributed to [plaintiffs] discharge” (emphasis added)); Mt. Healthy, 429 U. S., at 286-287. An employee who makes an unprotected statement is not immunized from discipline by the fact that this statement is surrounded by protected statements.
Nonetheless, we agree with the Court of Appeals that the District Court erred in granting summary judgment in petitioners’ favor. Though Davis and Waters would have been justified in firing Churchill for the statements outlined above, there remains the question whether Churchill was actually fired because of those statements, or because of something else. See Mt. Healthy, supra, at 286-287.
Churchill has produced enough evidence to create a material issue of disputed fact about petitioners’ actual motivation. Churchill had criticized the cross-training policy in the past; management had exhibited some
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These cases involve the validity of two orders, No. 451 and No. 451-A, promulgated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) to make substantial changes in the national market for natural gas. On petitions for review, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated the orders as exceeding the Commission’s authority under the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA), 92 Stat. 3352, 15 U. S. C. §3301 et seq. 885 F. 2d 209 (1989). In light of the economic interests at stake, we granted certiorari and consolidated the cases for briefing and oral argument. 496 U. S. 904 (1990). For the reasons that follow, we reverse and sustain the Commission’s orders in their entirety.
I
The Natural Gas Act of 1938 (NGA), 62 Stat. 821, 15 U. S. C. §717 et seq., was Congress’ first attempt to establish nationwide natural gas regulation. Section 4(a) mandated that the present Commission’s predecessor, the Federal Power Commission, ensure that all rates and charges requested by a natural gas company for the sale or transportation of natural gas in interstate commerce be “just and reasonable.” 15 U. S. C. §717c(a). Section 5(a) further provided that the Commission order a “just and reasonable rate, charge, classification, rule, regulation, practice, or contract” connected with the sale or transportation of gas whenever it determined that any of these standards or actions were “unjust” or “unreasonable.” 15 U. S. C. §717d(a).
Over the years the Commission adopted a number of different approaches in applying the NGA’s “just and reasonable” standard. See Public Serv. Comm’n of N. Y. v. Mid-Louisiana Gas Co., 463 U. S. 319, 327-331 (1983). Initially the Commission, construing the NGA to regulate gas sales only at the downstream end of interstate pipelines, proceeded on a company-by-company basis with reference to the historical costs each pipeline operator incurred in acquiring and transporting gas to its customers. The Court upheld this approach in FPC v. Hope Natural Gas Co., 320 U. S. 591 (1944), explaining that the NGA did not bind the Commission to “any single formula or combination of formulae in determining rates.” Id., at 602.
The Commission of necessity shifted course in response to our decision in Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Wisconsin, 347 U. S. 672 (1954). Phillips interpreted the NGA to require that the Commission regulate not just the downstream rates charged by large interstate pipeline concerns, but also upstream sales rates charged by thousands of independent gas producers. Id., at 682. Faced with the regulatory burden that resulted, the Commission eventually opted for an “area rate” approach for the independent producers while retaining the company-by-company method for the interstate pipelines. First articulated in 1960, the area rate approach established a single rate schedule for all gas produced in a given region based upon historical production costs and rates of return. See Statement of General Policy No. 61-1, 24 F. P. C. 818 (1960). Each area rate schedule included a two-tiered price ceiling: the lower ceiling for gas prices established in “old” gas contracts and a higher ceiling for gas prices set in “new” contracts. Id., at 819. The new two-tiered system was termed “vintage pricing” or “vintaging.” Vili-taging rested on the premise that the higher ceiling price for new gas production would provide incentives that would be superfluous for old gas already flowing because “price could not serve as an incentive, and since any price above average historical costs, plus an appropriate return, would merely confer windfalls.” Permian Basin Area Rate Cases, 390 U. S. 747, 797 (1968). The balance the Commission hoped to strike was the development of gas production through the “new” gas ceilings while ensuring continued protection of consumers through the “old” gas price limits. At the same time the Commission anticipated that the differences in price levels would be “reduced and eventually eliminated as subsequent experience brings about revisions in the prices in the various areas.” Statement of General Policy, supra, at 819. We upheld the vintage pricing system in Permian Basin, holding that the courts lacked the authority to set aside any Commission rate that was within the “‘zone of reasonableness.’” 390 U. S., at 797 (citation omitted).
By the early 1970’s, the two-tiered area rate approach no longer worked. Inadequate production had led to gas shortages which in turn had prompted a rapid rise in prices. Accordingly, the Commission abandoned vintaging in favor of a single national rate designed to encourage production. Just and Reasonable National Rates for Sales of Natural Gas, 51 F. P. C. 2212 (1974). Refining this decision, the Commission prescribed a single national rate for all gas drilled after 1972, thus rejecting an earlier plan to establish different national rates for succeeding biennial vintages. Just and Reasonable National Rates for Sales of Natural Gas, 52 F. P. C. 1604, 1615 (1974). But the single national pricing scheme did not last long either. In 1976 the Commission reinstated vin-taging with the promulgation of Order No. 770. National Rates for Jurisdictional Sales of Natural Gas, 56 F. P. C. 509. At about the same time, in Order No. 749, the Commission also consolidated a number of the old vintages for discrete areas into a single nationwide category for all gas already under production before 1973. Just and Reasonable National Rates for Sales of Natural Gas, 54 F. P. C. 3090 (1975), aff’d sub nom. Texaco Oil Co. v. FERC, 571 F. 2d 834 (CA5), cert. dism’d, 439 U. S. 801 (1978). Despite this consolidation, the Commission’s price structure still contained 15 different categories of old gas, each with its own ceiling price. Despite all these efforts, moreover, severe shortages persisted in the interstate market because low ceiling prices for interstate gas sales fell considerably below prices the same gas could command in intrastate markets, which were as yet unregulated.
Congress responded to these ongoing problems by enacting the NGPA, the statute that controls this controversy. See Mid-Louisiana Gas Co., supra, at 330-331. The NGPA addressed the problem of continuing shortages in several ways. First, it gave the Commission the authority to regulate prices in the intrastate market as well as the interstate market. See Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp. v. State Oil and Gas Bd. of Miss., 474 U. S. 409, 420-421 (1986) (Transco). Second, to encourage production of new reserves, the NGPA established higher price ceilings for new and hard-to-produce gas as well as a phased deregulation scheme for these types of gas. §§ 102, 103, 105, 107 and 108; 15 U. S. C. §§ 3312, 3313, 3315, 3317, 3318. Finally, to safeguard consumers, §§ 104 and 106 carried over the vintage price ceilings that happened to be in effect for old gas when the NGPA was enacted while mandating that these be adjusted for inflation. 15 U. S. C. §§3314 and 3316. Congress, however, recognized that some of these vintage price ceilings “may be too low and authorized] the Commission to raise [them] whenever traditional NGA principles would dictate a higher price.” Mid-Louisiana Gas, 463 U. S., at 333. In particular, §§ 104(b)(2) and 106(c) provided that the Commission “may, by rule or order, prescribe a maximum lawful ceiling price, applicable to any first sale of any natural gas (or category thereof, as determined by the Commission) otherwise subject to the preceding provisions of this section.” 15 U. S. C. §§ 3314(b)(2) and 3316(c). The only conditions that Congress placed on the Commission were, first, that the new ceiling be higher than the ceiling set by the statute itself and, second, that it be “just and reasonable” within the meaning of the NGA. §§ 3314(b)(1), 3316(a).
The new incentives for production of new and hard-to-produce gas transformed the gas shortages of the 1970’s into gas surpluses during the 1980’s. One result was serious market distortions. The higher new gas price ceilings prevented the unexpected oversupply from translating into lower consumer prices since the lower, vintage gas ceilings led to the premature abandonment of old gas reserves. App. 32-36. Accordingly, the Secretary of Energy in 1985 formally recommended that the Commission issue a notice of proposed rulemaking to revise the old gas pricing system. 50 Fed. Reg. 48540 (1985). After conducting two days of public hearings and analyzing approximately 113 sets of comments, the Commission issued the two orders under dispute in this case: Order No. 451, promulgated in June 1986, 51 Fed. Reg. 22168 (1986); and Order No. 451-A, promulgated in December 1986, which reaffirmed the approach of its predecessor while making certain modifications. 51 Fed. Reg. 46762 (1986).
The Commission’s orders have three principal components. First, the Commission collapsed the 15 existing vintage price categories of old gas into a single classification and established an alternative maximum price for a producer of gas in that category to charge, though only to a willing buyer. The new ceiling was set at $2.57 per million Btu’s, a price equal to the highest of the ceilings then in effect for old gas (that having the most recent, post-1974, vintage) adjusted for inflation. 51 Fed. Reg. 22183-22185 (1986); see 18 CFR §271.402(c)(3)(iii) (1986). When established the new ceiling exceeded the then-current market price for old gas. The Commission nonetheless concluded that this new price was “just and reasonable” because, among other reasons, it generally approximated the replacement cost of gas based upon the current cost of finding new gas fields, drilling new wells, and producing new gas. See Shell Oil Co. v. FPC, 520 F. 2d 1061 (CA5 1975) (holding that replacement cost formula appropriate for establishing “just and reasonable” rates under the NGA), cert. denied, 426 U. S. 941 (1976). In taking these steps, the Commission noted that the express and unambiguous terms of §§ 104(b)(2) and 106(c) gave it specific authorization to raise old gas prices so long as the resulting ceiling met the just and reasonable requirement. 51 Fed. Reg., at 22179.
The second principal feature of the orders establishes a “Good Faith Negotiation” (GFN) procedure that producers must follow before they can collect a higher price from current pipeline customers. 18 CFR §270.201 (1986). The GFN process consists of several steps. Initially, a producer may request a pipeline to nominate a price at which the pipeline would be willing to continue purchasing old gas under any existing contract. § 270.201(b)(1). At the same time, however, this request is also deemed to be an offer by the producer to release the purchaser from any contract between the parties that covers the sale of old gas. § 270.201(b)(4). In response, the purchaser can both nominate its own price for continuing to purchase old gas under the contracts specified by the purchaser and further request that the producer nominate a price at which the producer would be willing to continue selling any gas, old or new, covered under any contracts specified by the purchaser that cover at least some old gas. If the parties cannot come to terms, the producer can either continue sales at the old price under existing contracts or abandon its existing obligations so long as it has executed a new contract with another purchaser and given its old customer 30 days’ notice. §§ 157.301, 270.201(c)(1), (e)(4). The Commission’s chief rationale for the GFN process was a fear that automatic collection of the new price by producers would lead to market disruption given the existence of numerous gas contracts containing indefinite price-escalation clauses tied to whatever ceiling the agency established. 51 Fed. Reg., at 22204. The Commission further concluded that NGA § 7(b), which establishes a “due hearing” requirement before abandonments could take place, did not prevent it from promulgating an across-the-board rule rather than engage in case-by-case adjudication. 15 U. S. C. § 717f(b).
Finally, the Commission rejected suggestions that it undertake completely to resolve the issue of take-or-pay provisions in certain natural gas contracts in the same proceeding in which it addressed old gas pricing. The Commission explained that it was already addressing the take-or-pay problem in its Order No. 436 proceedings. It further pointed out that the GFN procedure, in allowing the purchaser to propose new higher prices for old gas in return for renegotiation of take-or-pay obligations, would help resolve many take-or-pay disputes. The Commission also reasoned that the expansion of old gas reserves resulting from its orders would reduce new gas prices and thus reduce the pipelines’ overall take-or-pay exposure. 51 Fed. Reg., at 22174-22175, 22183, 22196-22197, 46783-46784.
A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated the orders on the ground that the Commission had exceeded its statutory authority. The court first concluded that Congress did not intend to give the Commission the authority to set a single ceiling price for old gas under §§ 104(b)(2) and 106(c). The court also dismissed the ceiling price itself as unreasonable since it was higher than the spot market price when the orders were issued and so amounted to “de facto deregulation.” 885 F. 2d, at 218-222. Second, the court rejected the GFN procedure on the basis that the Commission lacked the authority to provide for across-the-board, preauthorized abandonment under §7(b). Id., at 221-222. Third, the court chided the Commission for failing to seize the opportunity to resolve the take-or-pay issue, although it did acknowledge that the Commission was addressing that matter on remand from the District of Columbia Circuit’s decision in Associated Gas Distributors v. FERC, 263 U. S. App. D. C. 1, 824 F. 2d 981 (1987), cert. denied, 485 U. S. 1006 (1988). The dissent disagreed with all three conclusions, observing that the majority should have deferred to the Commission as the agency Congress delegated to regulate natural gas. 885 F. 2d, at 226-235 (Brown, J., dissenting). We granted certiorari, 496 U. S. 904 (1990), and now reverse and sustain the Commission’s orders.
II
Section 104 (a) provides that the maximum price for old gas should be computed as provided in § 104(b). The general rule under § 104(b)(1) is that each category of old gas would be priced as it was prior to the enactment of the NGPA, but increased over time in accordance with an inflation formula. This was the regime that obtained under the NGPA until the issuance of the orders at issue here. Section 104(b)(2), however, plainly gives the Commission authority to change this regulatory scheme applicable to old gas:
“The Commission may, by rule or order, prescribe a maximum lawful ceiling price, applicable to any first sale of any natural gas (or category thereof, as determined by the Commission) otherwise subject to the preceding provisions of this section, if such price is —
“(A) higher than the maximum lawful price which would otherwise be applicable under such provisions; and
“(B) just and reasonable within the meaning of the Natural Gas Act [15 U. S. C. 717 et seq.].” 15 U. S. C. §§ 3314(b)(2) and 3316(c).
Nothing in these provisions prevents the Commission from either increasing the ceiling price for multiple old gas vintages or from setting the ceiling price applicable to each vintage at the same level. To the contrary, the statute states that the Commission may increase the ceiling price for “any natural gas (or category thereof, as determined by the Commission).” (Emphasis added.) Likewise, § 104(b)(2) allows the Commission to “prescribe a ceiling price” applicable to any natural gas category. Insofar as “any” encompasses “all,” this language enables the Commission to set a single ceiling price for every category of old gas. As we have stated in similar contexts, “[i]f the statute is clear and unambiguous, ‘that is the end of the matter, for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.’” Sullivan v. Stroop, 496 U. S. 478, 482 (1990) (quoting K mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U. S. 281, 291 (1988)).
Respondents counter that the structure of the NGPA points to the opposite conclusion. Specifically, they contend that Congress could not have intended to allow the Commission to collapse all old gas vintages under a single price where the NGPA created detailed incentives for new and hard-to-produce gas on one hand, yet carefully preserved the old gas vintaging scheme on the other. Brief for Respondents 33-37. We disagree. The statute’s bifurcated approach implies no more than that Congress found the need to encourage new gas production sufficiently pressing to deal with the matter directly, but was content to leave old gas pricing within the discretion of the Commission to alter as conditions warranted. The plain meaning of § 104(b)(2) confirms this view.
Further, the Commission’s decision to set a single ceiling fully accords with the two restrictions that the NGPA does establish. With respect to the first, the requirement that a ceiling price be “higher than” the old vintage ceilings carried over from the NGA does nothing to prevent the Commission from consolidating existing categories and setting one price equivalent to the highest previous ceiling. 15 U. S. C. §§ 3314(b)(2)(A) and 3316(c)(1). With respect to the second, collapsing the old vintages also comports with the mandate that price ceilings be “just and reasonable within the meaning of the Natural Gas Act.” 15 U. S. C. §§3314(b)(2)(B) and 3316(c)(2).
Far from binding the Commission, the “just and reasonable” requirement accords it broad ratemaking authority that its decision to set a single ceiling does not exceed. The Court has repeatedly held that the just and reasonable standard does not compel the Commission to use any single pricing formula in general or vintaging in particular. FPC v. Hope Natural Gas Co., 320 U. S. 591, 602 (1944); FPC v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co., 315 U. S. 575, 586 (1942); Permian Basin, 390 U. S., at 776-777; FPC v. Texaco Inc., 417 U. S. 380, 386-389 (1974); Mobil Oil Corp. v. FPC, 417 U. S. 283, 308 (1974). Courts of Appeals have also consistently affirmed the Commission’s use of a replacement-cost-based method under the NGA. E. g., Shell Oil Co. v. FPC, 520 F. 2d 1061, 1082-1083 (CA5 1975), cert. denied, 426 U. S. 941 (1976); American Public Gas Assn. v. FPC, 567 F. 2d 1016, 1059 (CADC 1977), cert. denied, 435 U. S. 907 (1978). By incorporating the “just and reasonable” standard into the NGPA, Congress clearly meant to preserve the pricing flexibility the Commission had historically exercised under the NGA. See Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Curran, 456 U. S. 353, 378-382 (1982). In employing a replacement cost formula, the Commission did no more than what it had previously done under the NGA: collapse vintage categories together because the replacement cost for natural gas is the same regardless of when it was placed in production. See Order No. 749, Just and Reasonable National Rates for Sales of Natural Gas, 54 F. P. C. 3090 (1975).
Respondents contend that even if the statute allows the Commission to set a single old gas ceiling, the particular ceiling it has set is unjustly and impermissibly high. They first argue that the Commission conceded that actual collection of the new price would not be just and therefore established the GFN procedures as a requisite safeguard. The Commission correctly denies having made any such concession. In its orders, in its briefs, and at oral argument, the agency has been at pains to point out that its ceiling price, which was no higher than the highest of the ceilings then applicable to old gas, falls squarely within the “zone of reasonableness” mandated by the NGA. See Permian Basin, supra, at 767. What the agency has acknowledged is that automatic collection of prices up to the ceiling under the escalator clauses common to industry contracts would produce “inappropriate” market distortion, especially since the market price remains below the ceiling. Reply Brief for Petitioner in No. 89-1453, p. 12. In consequence the Commission instituted the GFN process to mitigate too abrupt a transition from one pricing regime to the next. Respondents have not sought to challenge (and we do not today consider) the Commission’s authority to require this process, but they assert that the requiring of it amounts to an acknowledgment by the Commission that the new ceiling price is in fact unreasonable. We disagree. There is nothing incompatible between the belief that a price is reasonable and the belief that it ought not to be imposed without prior negotiations. We decline to disallow an otherwise lawful rate because additional safeguards accompany it.
We likewise reject respondents’ more fundamental objection that no order “deregulating” the price of old gas can be deemed just and reasonable. The agency’s orders do not deregulate in any legally relevant sense. The Commission adopted an approved pricing formula, set a maximum price, and expressly rejected proposals that it truly deregulate by eliminating any ceiling for old gas whatsoever. App. 170-171. Nor can we conclude that deregulation results simply because a given ceiling price may be above the market price. United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Mobile Gas Serv. Corp., 350 U. S. 332, 343 (1956); FPC v. Sierra Pacific Power Co., 350 U. S. 348, 353 (1956); FPC v. Texaco Inc., 417 U. S. 380, 397 (1974).
Ill
We further hold that Order No. 45l’s abandonment procedures fully comport with the requirements set forth in §7(b) of the NGA. 15 U. S. C. §717f(b). In particular, we reject the suggestion that this provision mandates individualized proceedings involving interested parties before a specific abandonment can take place.
Section 7(b), which Congress retained when enacting the NGPA, states:
“No natural-gas company shall abandon all or any portion of its facilities subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, or any service rendered by means of such facilities, without the permission and approval of the Commission first had and obtained, after due hearing, and a finding by the Commission that the available supply of natural gas is depleted to the extent that the continuance of service is unwarranted, or that the present or future public convenience or necessity permit such abandonment.” 15 U. S. C. §717f(b).
As applied to this case § 7(b) prohibits a producer from abandoning its contractual service obligations to the purchaser unless the Commission has, first, granted its “permission and approval” of the abandonment; second, made a “finding” that “present or future public convenience or necessity permit such abandonment”; and, third, held a “hearing” that is “due.” The Commission has taken each of these steps.
First, Order No. 451 permits and approves the abandonment at issue. That approval is not specific to any single abandonment but is instead general, prospective, and conditional. These conditions include: failure by the purchaser and producer to agree to a revised price under the GFN procedures; execution of a new contract between the producer and a new purchaser; and 30-days’ notice to the previous purchaser of contract termination. 18 CFR § 270.201(c)(1) (1986). Neither respondents nor the Court of Appeals holding directly questions the Commission’s orders for failing to satisfy this initial requirement. As we have previously held, nothing in § 7(b) prevents the Commission from giving advance approval of abandonment. FPC v. Moss, 424 U. S. 494, 499-502 (1976). See Permian Basin, 390 U. S., at 776.
Second, the Commission also made the necessary findings that “present or future public interest or necessity” allowed the conditional abandonment that it prescribed. 51 Fed. Reg., at 46785-46787. Reviewing “all relevant factors involved in determining the overall public interest,” the Commission found that preauthorized abandonment under the GFN regime would generally protect purchasers by allowing them to buy at market rates elsewhere if contracting producers insisted on the new ceiling price; safeguard producers by allowing them to abandon service if the contracting purchaser fails to come to terms; and serve the market by releasing previously unused reserves of old gas. See Felmont Oil Corp. and Essex Offshore, Inc., 33 FERC ¶61,333, p. 61,657 (1985), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. Consolidated Edison Co. of N. Y. v. FERC, 262 U. S. App. D. C. 222, 823 F. 2d 630 (1987). At bottom these findings demonstrate the agency’s determination that the GFN conditions make certain matters common to all abandonments. Contrary to respondents’ theory, § 7(b) does not compel the agency to make “specific findings” with regard to every abandonment when the issues involved are general. As we held in the context of disability proceedings under the Social Security Act, “general factual issue[s] may be resolved as fairly through rulemaking” as by considering specific evidence when the questions under consideration are “not unique” to the particular case. Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U. S. 458, 468 (1983).
Finally, it follows from the foregoing that the Commission discharged its §7(b) duty to hold a “due hearing.” Before promulgating Order No. 451, the agency held both a notice and comment hearing and an oral hearing. As it correctly concluded, § 7(b) required no more. Time and again, “[t]he Court has recognized that even where an agency’s enabling statute expressly requires it to hold a hearing, the agency may rely on its rulemaking authority to determine issues that do not require case-by-case consideration.” Heckler v. Campbell, supra, at 467; Permian Basin, supra, at 774-777; FPC v. Texaco Inc., 377 U. S. 33, 41-44 (1964); United States v. Storer Broadcasting Co., 351 U. S. 192, 205 (1956). The Commission’s approval conditions establish, and its findings confirm, that the abandonment at issue here is precisely the type of issue in which “[a] contrary holding would require the agency continually to relitigate issues that may be established fairly and efficiently in a single rulemaking proceeding.” Heckler v. Campbell, supra, at 467. See Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. FERC, 285 U. S. App. D. C. 115, 907 F. 2d 185, 188 (1990); Kansas Power & Light Co. v. FERC, 271 U. S. App. D. C. 252, 256-259, 851 F. 2d 1479, 1483-1486 (1988); Associated Gas Distributors v. FERC, 263 U. S. App. D. C. 1, 35, n. 17, 824 F. 2d 981, 1015, n. 17 (1987), cert. denied, 485 U. S. 1006 (1988).
Neither the Court of Appeals nor respondents have uncovered a convincing rationale for holding otherwise. Relying on United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. McCombs, 442 U. S. 529 (1979), the panel majority held that Order No. 451’s prospective approval of abandonment was impermissible given the “practical” control the GFN process afforded producers. 885 F. 2d, at 221-223. McCombs, however, is inapposite since that case dealt with a producer who attempted to abandon with no Commission approval, finding, or hearing whatsoever. Nor can respondents object that the Commission made no provision for individual determinations under its abandonment procedures where appropriate. Under Order No. 451, a purchaser who objects to a given abandonment on the grounds that the conditions the agency has set forth have not been met may file a complaint with the Commission. See 18 CFR §385.206 (1986).
IV
We turn, finally, to the problem of “take-or-pay” contracts. A take-or-pay contract obligates a pipeline to purchase a specified volume of gas at a specified price and, if it is unable to do so, to pay for that volume. A plausible response to the gas shortages of the 1970’s, this device has created significant dislocations in light of the oversupply of gas that has occurred since. Today many purchasers face disastrous take-or-pay liability without sufficient outlets to recoup their losses. The Court of Appeals cited this problem as a further reason for invalidating Order No. 451. Specifically, the court chastised the Commission for its “regrettable and unwarranted” failure to address the take-or-pay problem in the rulemaking under consideration. 885 F. 2d, at 224.
Exactly what the court held, however, is another matter. The dissent viewed the majority’s discussion as affirmatively ordering the Commission “once and for all to solve” the entire take-or-pay issue. 885 F. 2d, at 234 (Brown, J., dissenting). Respondents more narrowly characterize the holding as that the Commission should have addressed the take-or-pay problem at least to the extent that Order No. 451 exacerbated it. Brief for Respondents 67-70. We have no need to choose between these interpretations because the Court of Appeals erred under either view.
The court clearly overshot the mark if it ordered the Commission to resolve the take-or-pay problem in this proceeding. An agency enjoys broad discretion in determining how best to handle related, yet discrete, issues in terms of procedures, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U. S. 519 (1978), and priorities, Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U. S. 821, 831-832 (1985). We have expressly approved an earlier Commission decision to treat the take-or-pay issue separately where a different proceeding would generate more appropriate information and where the agency was addressing the question. FPC v. Sunray DX Oil Co., 391 U. S. 9, 49-51 (1968). The record in this case shows that approximately two-thirds of existing take-or-pay contracts do not involve old gas. We are satisfied that the agency could compile relevant data more effectively in a separate proceeding. We are likewise satisfied that “the Commission itself has taken steps to alleviate take-or-pay problems.” Id., at 50. In promulgating Order No. 451, the agency explained that it had chosen not to deal with the take-or-pay matter directly primarily because it was addressing the matter on remand from the D. C. Circuit. Associated Gas Distributors v. FERC, supra.
The court likewise erred if it meant that the Commission should have addressed the take-or-pay problem insofar as Order No. 451 “exacerbated” it. This rationale does not provide a basis for invalidating the Commission’s orders. As noted, an agency need not solve every problem before it in the same proceeding. This applies even where the initial solution to one problem has adverse consequences for another area that the agency was addressing. See Vermont Yankee, supra, at 543-544 (agencies are free to engage in multiple rulemaking “[a]bsent constitutional constraints or extremely compelling circumstances”). Moreover, the agency articulated rational grounds for concluding that Order No. 451 would do more to ameliorate the take-or-pay problem than worsen it. 51 Fed. Reg., at 22196, 46783-46784. The agency reasoned that the GFN procedures would encourage the renegotiation of take-or-pay provisions in contracts involving the sale of old gas or old gas and new gas together. Id,., at 22196-22197. The agency further noted that the release of old gas would reduce the market price for new gas and thus reduce the pipelines’ aggregate liability. We are neither inclined nor prepared to second-guess the agency’s reasoned determination in this complex area. See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 463 U. S. 29, 43 (1983).
V
We disagree with the Court of Appeals that the Commission lacked the authority to set a single ceiling price for old gas; possessed no power to authorize conditional preauthor-ized abandonment of producers’ obligations to provide old gas; or had a duty to address the take-or-pay problem more fully in this proceeding. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and sustain Orders Nos. 451 and 451-A in their entirety.
So ordered.
Justice Kennedy took no part in the decision of these cases.
The term “Commission” will refer to both the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and its predecessor, the Federal Power Commission.
Order No. 451 shall refer to both orders where the distinction is not relevant.
A take-or-pay clause requires a purchasing pipeline to take a specified volume of gas from a producer or, if it is unable to do so, to pay for the specified volume. See Transco, 474 U. S. 409, 412 (1986).
Section 104 in its entirety reads:
“Ceiling price for sales of natural gas dedicated to interstate commerce.
“(a) Application. — In the case of natural gas committed or dedicated to interstate commerce on [November 8, 1978,] and for which a just and reasonable rate under the Natural Gas Act [15 U. S. C. §717 et seq.] was in effect on such date for the first sale of such natural gas, the maximum lawful price computed under subsection (b) shall apply to any first sale of such natural gas delivered during any month.
“(b) Maximum lawful price. —
“(1) General rule. —The maximum lawful price under this section for any
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Under § 33 (g) of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, an employer is not obligated to pay compensation to an employee who, without the employer’s written approval, settles a claim against a third person for an amount less than the compensation to which the employee is entitled under the Act. 44 Stat. 1441, as amended, 33 U. S. C. § 933 (g). Certiorari was granted in this case, 402 U. S. 1008 (1971), on the assumption that it presented the question whether the consent judgment entered by the District Judge awarding petitioner damages against a third person evidenced a “compromise” subject to § 33 (g), or an award of damages “determined ... by the independent evaluation of a trial judge,” not subject to § 33 (g) under Banks v. Chicago Grain Trimmers Assn., 390 U. S. 459, 467 (1968). Fuller examination of the case on oral argument discloses that the record does not adequately present that question. The writ of certiorari is therefore dismissed as improvidently granted.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
A three-judge District Court entered a declaratory-judgment holding unconstitutional a Florida statute, Fla. Stat. Ann. §458.22 (3) (Supp. 1974^-1975), which forbids an abortion without the consent of the husband, if the woman is married, and if unmarried and under the age of 18, without the consent of a parent. Because it was anticipated that the State would respect the declaratory judgment, the court declined to issue an injunction against the enforcement of the statute. The State of Florida appeals from the declaratory judgment invalidating the statute. The appeal ' is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Title 28 U. S. C. § 1253, under which this appeal is sought to be taken, does not authorize an appeal from the grant or denial of declaratory relief alone. Gunn v. University Committee, 399 U. S. 383 (1970); Mitchell v. Donovan, 398 U. S. 427 (1970); Rockefeller v. Catholic Medical Center of Brooklyn & Queens, Inc., Division of St. Mary’s Hospital, 397 U. S. 820 (1970); see also Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113, 123 (1973). The declaratory judgment is appealable to the Court of Appeals, and we are informed that an appeal to that court has already been taken. It is suggested that we treat the statement of jurisdiction as a petition for certiorari before judgment to the Court of Appeals pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1254 (1). The petition for certiorari is denied.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, First Judicial Department, is reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767.
The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Clark would affirm. Mishkin v. New York, 383 U. S. 602.
Mr. Justice Harlan adheres to the views expressed in his separate opinions in Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 496, and Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U. S. 413, 455, and on the basis of the reasoning set forth therein would affirm.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Reed
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Questions of the power of the Interstate Commerce Commission to tighten the restrictions on operations of a railroad’s motor-carrier affiliate are raised by this appeal. In the Commission’s view the operations must be modified in order to make them truly auxiliary to or supplemental of the rail service. They are conducted (1) under a certificate of convenience and necessity issued in 1941 under § 207 of the Interstate Commerce Act, and (2) under an order of 1944 approving the acquisition of another motor carrier. The certificate contains the condition that the Commission might impose other terms to restrict the holder’s operation to service which is auxiliary to or supplemental of rail service. The order contains neither this condition nor any other relating to the specific operating rights of the carrier.
The issues involve a basic power of the Commission to regulate the operations of motor carriers affiliated with railroads so as to assure that at all times the motor operations shall be consonant with the National Transportation Policy, 54 Stat. 899. The Commission has decided that that policy requires the motor operations of railroads and their affiliates to be auxiliary to and supplemental of train service. This raises questions as to how the planned auxiliary and supplemental service is to be -achieved. Differences also exist as to what phases of motor-carrier operations are auxiliary to and supplemental of rail or train service.
The Rock Island Motor Transit Company, a wholly-owned corporate subsidiary of the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company and its predecessors, is a common carrier by motor vehicle engaged in transporting property in inter- and intrastate commerce, exclusively, for all practical purposes, along the rail lines of its parent corporation in Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Tennessee, Texas and Kansas. Many of Transit’s operations alongside its parent are in different localities and under other I. C. C. authorities than the certificate and order here involved.
This appeal deals with additional operating restrictions placed subsequent to the Commission’s formal approval of Transit’s purchase and operation, upon two of Transit’s acquisitions. The first is a segment of the so-called White Line Purchase. The Line was in process of perfecting its “grandfather rights” under § 206 (a), Motor Carrier Act, at the time of appellees’ agreement to purchase. The order directing issue of the certificate to Rock Island recognized this. This purchase was authorized under § 213, Motor Carrier Act of 1935, 49 Stat. 555, April 1, 1938, Docket No. MC-F-445; reported 5 M- C. C. 451, 15 M. C. C. 763. The segments of the White Line Purchase here involved are those between Des Moines, Iowa, and Omaha, Nebraska, and Des Moines, Iowa, and Silvis, Illinois, included in Transit’s certificate of convenience and necessity issued in No. MC 29130, December 3, 1941. That certificate had only the following provisions in any way applicable to this controversy:
“Service is authorized to and from the intermediate points on the above-specified routes which are also stations on the lines of The Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company.
“The operations authorized on the above-specified routes are subject to such further limitations, restrictions, or modifications as we may find it necessary to impose or make in order to insure that the service shall be auxiliary or supplementary to the train service of The Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company and shall not unduly restrain competition.”
The second acquisition is the so-called Frederickson Purchase, authorized November 28, 1944, Docket No. MC-F-2327, under § 5, Interstate Commerce Act, 54 Stat. 905, by which Transit acquired, from the holders of a certificate of convenience and necessity, a route between Atlantic, Iowa, and Omaha, Nebraska. Neither the report nor the order contained provisions alike or akin to these just quoted from the White Line certificate. No order for a certificate has yet been entered and no certificate has been issued.
The routes here involved are a major part of the Rock Island’s truck route between Chicago and Omaha. The eastern end of that route from Silvis, Illinois, to Chicago is operated under other I. C. C. authority.
Transit has been operating the above routes since their respective dates. Under those authorities, Transit states it has engaged in trucking service as follows:
“(a) a coordinated rail-service, at rail rates auxiliary to the existing service of appellee’s affiliated railroad; (b) a motor service in substitution of rail service, at rail rates; and (c) a motor common carrier service at rates and tariffs observed and applied by appellee’s predecessors, as modified from time to time.”
On February 5, 1945, the Commission directed reopening of the dockets to give reconsideration to the above certificate and order,
“solely to determine (a) the conditions or restrictions, if any appear necessary, which should be imposed to insure that the motor carrier service performed by The Rock Island Motor Transit Company is limited to that which is auxiliary to, or supplemental of, rail service, and (b) the condition, if any appears necessary, which should be imposed so as to make the authority granted to The Rock Island Motor Transit Company subject to such further conditions or restrictions as the Commission may find necessary to impose in order to insure that the service shall be auxiliary to, or supplemental of, rail service.”
At the end of that reconsideration, an order was entered to modify the White Purchase certificate and the Fred-erickson order in the following respects:
“1. The service to be performed by The Rock Island Motor Transit Company shall be limited to service which is auxiliary to, or supplemental of, train service of The Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company, hereinafter called the Railroad.
“2. The Rock Island Motor Transit Company shall not render any service to or from any point not a station on a rail line of the Railroad.
“3. No shipments shall be transported by The Rock Island Motor Transit Company between any of the following points, or through, or to, or from, more than one of said points: Omaha, Nebr., Des Moines, Iowa, and collectively Davenport and Bettendorf, Iowa, and Rock Island, Moline, and East Moline, Ill.
“4. All contractual arrangements between The Rock Island Motor Transit Company and the Railroad shall be reported to us and shall be subject to revision, if and as we find it to be necessary, in order that such arrangements shall be fair and equitable to the parties.
“5. Such further specific conditions as we, in the future, find it necessary to impose in order to insure thaf the service shall be auxiliary to, or supplemental of, train service.” Rock Island Motor Transit Co., 55 M. C. C. 567, 597-598, affirming 40 M. C. C. 457.
It is from those modifications that Transit sought relief through §§ 1336 and 2325 of 28 U. S. C. from a three-judge district court. The relief was granted and the orders were annulled and their enforcement enjoined. 90 F. Supp. 516. The United States and the Interstate Commerce Commission appealed under 28 U. S. C. § 1253. We noted probable jurisdiction.
Transit’s objection to the order modifying the provisions under which it operates these routes may be generalized as a contention that the Commission’s order changes or revokes a part of Transit’s operating authority, previously granted by the Commission, without any failure by Transit to comply with any term, condition or limitation of the Commission authority under which Transit functions. Changes or revocations may only be made under § 212 (a) of the Interstate Commerce Act, for such failures.
The Commission, on the other hand, takes the position. that there is no change in or revocation of its authorization to operate as a motor common carrier. It looks upon the certificate for the White Line route and. the order for the Frederickson Purchase as being controlled by the Interstate Commerce Act and Transit’s applications for purchase approval. The Commission understands the Declaration of Policy, § 202 (a) of the Motor Carrier Act, enacted at the inception of federal regulation of motor carriers in 1935, 49 Stat. 543, as directing it to preserve the inherent advantages of such transportation in the public interest. It finds support for this view in the National Transportation Policy set out in the 1940 amendments to the Interstate Commerce Act, 54 Stat. 899, declaring that the Act should be administered so as to recognize and preserve the inherent advantages of rail, motor and water transportation. It treats § 213 of the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 and present § 5 of the Interstate Commerce Act as authorizing mergers, consolidations and acquisitions between rail and motor carriers only within the Transportation Policy. Although § 207, providing for the issuance of certificates of convenience and necessity, has no clause requiring special justification for railroads to receive motor-carrier operating rights, such as appears in the proviso in former § 213 and present § 5, the Commission applies the rules of the National Transportation Policy so as to read the proviso into § 207 in order to preserve the inherent advantages of motor-carrier service.
The trial court accepted Transit’s argument. 90 F. Supp. at 519. The court found the undisputed fact to be that the Commission, in this modification proceeding, was not acting under § 212 of the Interstate Commerce Act, authorizing changes or revocations in operating authority, but under claimed power subsequently to impose conditions to insure that the operations would be auxiliary to, or supplemental of, rail service; that Transit’s operations were at all times auxiliary and supplemental to rail service within the Commission’s definition of that service when the acquisitions were approved, and could not be changed or revoked except under § 212; that such restrictions as were proposed would interfere with the full motor common-carrier rights of Transit’s predecessors guaranteed to them by the “grandfather clause,” § 206, and transferred to Transit by a purchase approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission.
A glance at the proposed restrictions, supra, pp. 425-426, shows the practical disadvantages to Transit. It cannot carry on a general all-motor operation on its own billings or under motor rates, joint, or local. It cannot haul through motor traffic at rail tariffs between the “key points,” Omaha, Des Moines and the Bettendorf-Rock Island-Moline center. Furthermore, Transit rests under the threat of possible future restrictions as need may be shown for their application to hold its operations, under changing conditions, to those then reasonably determined by the Commission to be needed to keep Transit’s motor service auxiliary and supplemental to its parent’s rail service. Transit alleges that the restrictions would bar it from participation in traffic on the affected routes that now produce a gross revenue of more than a million dollars a year. As damage to Transit, if the Commission order is enforced, was admitted, proof of the amount was dispensed with.
With the situation as above stated in mind, we take up the question of the validity of the Commission’s action in this case.
Statutory Authority. — The Commission has power at the time of its approval of an application to limit the authority to be granted by certificates of convenience and necessity for the operation of motor carriers, whether the certificate is issued on an original application under § 207 or after acquisition under § 213 of the Motor Carrier Act, § 5 (2) Interstate Commerce Act. Section 206 requires a certificate. Section 207 gives discretion to the Commission according to the statutory standards of convenience and necessity to authorize a part or all of the requested operations. The service múst be performed according to the “requirements, rules, and regulations of the Commission.”
The practice of the Commission from the beginning of motor-carrier regulation has been to restrict motor-carrier operations both geographically and functionally. The same was true of railroad motor-carrier affiliates. We think that at the time of issuance of the certificate, if the Commission reasonably deems the restriction useful in protecting competition, or for other statutory purposes, the Commission may require the railroad-affiliated motor carrier to perform only those services that are auxiliary and supplemental to the rail service. That the railroads. made use of motor carriage primarily in such fashion was known to the Congress before the enactment of any regulatory legislation in the field. Such a restriction is a logical method to insure the maximum development of the two transportation agencies — rails and motors — as coordinate transportation services in accordance with the Declaration of Policy, § 202 (a) of the Motor Carrier Act of 1935, 49 Stat. 543, later incorporated into the National Transportation Policy, prefixed to the Interstate Commerce Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 899. Specific statutory authority is found in the requirements of the proviso in § 213 (a) of the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 and § 5 of the Interstate Commerce Act as amended in 1940, quoted in note 3, supra. Railroad operations as motor carriers are forbidden by that acquisition section except to enable a railroad “to use service by motor vehicle to public advantage in its operations.”
A spate of cases can be cited to support the practice, some of which were specifically called to Congress’ attention prior to the enactment of the 1940 Act. With this knowledge that the Commission was granting certificates when it deemed the proposed railroad motor-carrier affiliates would operate as auxiliary to and supplemental of railroad service, Congress reenacted § 213 of the Motor Carrier Act in § 5 (2) of the Transportation Act of 1940. Such limitation was in furtherance of the National Transportation Policy, for otherwise the resources of railroads might soon make over-the-road truck competition impossible, as unregulated truck transport, it was feared, might have crippled some railroads. Motor transportation then would be an adjunct to rail transportation, and hoped-for advancements in land transportation from supervised competition between motors and rails would not materialize. The control of the bulk of rail and motor transportation would be concentrated in one type of operation. Complete rail domination was not envisaged as a way to preserve the inherent advantages of each form of transportation.
As indicated above in the text just preceding note 4, the Commission reads into § 207 the same requirement. Thus a consistent attitude toward the use of motors by railroads is maintained. It also relies on its understanding of the directions of the National Transportation Policy “to recognize and preserve the inherent advantages of each/’ rail, motor, and water; and its reliance on that Policy is further justified by the Whittington amendment stating that “all the provisions of this Act shall be administered and enforced with a view to carrying out the above declaration of policy.” 54 Stat. 899.
But power in the Commission, before issuance of a certificate or approval of acquisition, to limit railroad motor operations so as to make them auxiliary and supplemental to rail service does not necessarily imply power to change the conditions designed to bring about the desired coordination, after issuance of the certificate. The parent railroad may have acquired or developed its motor affiliate in reliance on the conditions stated in the certificate. So far as the present case is concerned, there is a provision, quoted above, pp. 423-424, making the certificate for the White Line operation subject to further limitations, restrictions or modifications the Commission might find necessary to insure a continuance of auxiliary and supplemental operation and to avoid undue restraint on competition. It was a clause like this in Interstate Commerce Commission v. Parker, 326 U. S. 60, that occasioned the comment that “if the Commission later determines that the balance of public convenience and necessity shifts through competition or otherwise, so that injury to the public from impairment of the inherent advantages of motor transportation exceeds the advantage to the public of efficient rail transportation, the Commission may correct the tendency by restoration of the rail movement requirement or otherwise.” Id. at 71-72. As the issue in the Parker case was the right to issue certificates to railway subsidiaries when existing over-the-road motor carriage might have been utilized, no determination was made there as to whether or not such a reservation was valid. Its effect on the present issues comes from the ruling there made that the Commission had power to balance the public interests in the different methods of transportation so as to preserve the inherent advantages of each, even though its action might bring some disadvantage to one system or the other. This duty was said to have been imposed upon the Commission by the National Transportation Policy. Id. at p. 66.
When competition, public interest in the preservation of the inherent advantages of rails and motors, and use of motor service by railroads in their operations are the basis, as they are (see National Transportation Policy, 54 Stat. 899 and § 5 (2) (b)), for allowing acquisitions of motor routes by railroads, we think it consonant with that policy to reserve the right to make further limitations, restrictions or modifications to insure that the. service remain auxiliary or supplemental. Congress could not have expected the Commission to be able to determine once and for all the provisions essential to maintain the required balance. Such a reservation, of course, does not provide unfettered power in the Commission to change the certificate at will. That would violate § 212, allowing suspension, change or revocation only for the certificate holders’ willful failure to comply with the Act or lawful orders or regulations of the Commission. The reservation by its terms does not offend against the provision of § 212 that a certificate “shall remain in effect until suspended or terminated,” as § 212 provides. The Commission asserts the modifications were made in accordance with the certificate. The reservation would not authorize changes in operation or service unconnected with the plan of coordinated operation; and indeed Transit was not originally authorized to operate independently and at large. What the reservation does allow are changes to insure that the operations will continue as auxiliary or supplemental to the train service.
The consolidation section, § 5 (2), permits a railroad to purchase a motor carrier only “with the approval and authorization of the Commission.” That approval is contingent upon a finding of public advantage and lack of undue restraint on competition. Then approval is to be made “upon the terms and conditions, and with the modifications, so found to be just and reasonable.”
We note the directions of § 208 as to the certificate, requiring that it “shall specify the service to be rendered” and that “there shall, at the time of issuance and from time to time thereafter, be attached to the exercise of the privileges granted by the certificate such reasonable terms, conditions, and limitations as the public convenience and necessity may... require.” We note also §§ 216 (c) and 217 (a) with their provisions allowing common carriers by motor to establish through routes and joint rates with other carriers, motor or otherwise. Sections 208, 216 (c) and 217 (a) with their general provisions do not in our opinion override the specific requirement of the National Transportation Policy that the inherent advantages of all modes of transportation be retained, or of § 5 that acquisition of motor routes by railroads shall require the above special findings and may be subject to special conditions. Section 208 does not seem to conflict with § 5 (b), and § 216 (c) is based on voluntary action. And we need not pause over the contention that limitations placed upon rail-owned motor carriers transform them from common into contract carriers under the definitions in § 203.
The language of the proviso of § 5 (2) (b), we hold, gives the Commission power to enforce the reservation in the certificate set out on pp. 423-424, supra. We turn then to the question whether the five directed modifications of the certificate, pp. 425-426, supra, fairly may be said to be of a character auxiliary to or supplemental of train service and not such a change or revocation in part as is contemplated by the procedure of § 212, for failure to comply with statutory or regulatory provisions.
Auxiliary and Supplemental. — The Interstate Commerce Act sets out only generally requirements that must be met by railroad applicants for motor-carrier certificates. In acquisition cases under § 5 (2) the certificate is not to be issued without the statutory findings discussed above that the proposed merger or consolidation will be in the “public interest” and that the railroad can use the motor service “to public advantage in its operations.”
The words “auxiliary to or supplemental of” are not taken from the Act. There is no such specific limitation for railroad operation of motor carriers. Their connotation is to be gathered from the context in which they have been employed by the Commission. The certificate, pp. 423-424, supra, used the phrase to avoid undue restraint on competition. That has been its use from the beginning. The only competition at which the limitation was directed was full railroad competition with over-the-road motor carriers. Appellees urge that the meaning of the words is limited by its application through the restrictions on the certificates at the time it was issued, December 3, 1941.
Appellees assert that under their certificate they could and did transport at either rail or truck billing and rates, with no restriction of movement along the route. The auxiliary and supplemental requirement, they argue, is adequately complied with by restricting the service to points “which are also stations on the lines of The Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company.” The Commission, appellees contend, was functioning with this geographical concept of auxiliary and supplemental in mind when, in 1941, reservation was made in Transit’s certificate. To support this assertion, appellees call attention to the case in which the phrase “auxiliary and supplementary” was first applied to authorize motor service of railroad affiliates, Pennsylvania Truck Lines, Inc.—Barker Motor Freight, 1 M. C. C. 101 at 113, October 8, 1936. Later, in 5 M. C. C. 9, March 6, 1937, the form was changed as shown below. That this authorization permitted general motor-carrier service along the rail lines, appellee states, is shown by Pennsylvania Truck Lines, Inc., Extension—Lebanon, Ohio, 47 M. C. C. 837, decided January 6, 1948. See also, Southern Pacific Company—Valley Motor Lines, Inc., 39 M. C. C. 441, 447.
The Commission asserts that the meaning of “auxiliary and supplemental” as used in the Barker Purchase and thereafter was not geographical. This, it says, is shown by the explanation in 5 M. C. C. at p. 11, a later Barker report and order. In 1943, after the certificate here in question was issued, the Commission defined “auxiliary and supplemental” in the Texas & Pacific Motor Transport Company Application, 41 M. C. C. 721. The Commission notes that the Valley case, supra, came after Texas & Pacific, and now considers it disapproved by a subsequent denial of reconsideration of Texas & Pacific. 55 M. C. C. 567, 584-585. The question has evidently produced a difference of opinion in the Commission.
Appellees charged that the Commission had tightened its “concept of what is auxiliary to, or supplemental of, rail service.” 55 M. C. C. 567, 583. The Commission refused to accept that assumption and therefore did not discuss the necessity of proceeding under § 212 in changing or partially revoking the certificate. It held:
“We conclude that approval of the acquisition by Transit was solely for the purpose of enabling Transit to perform a service auxiliary to and supplemental of rail service; that such intent or purpose was adequately evidenced by the report of division 5 including the reservation of a right specifically to restrict if need should be found; that Transit has no cause for any complaint that it was misled to its prejudice and that our concept at the time of the original decision herein, as to what constitutes service auxiliary to or supplemental of rail service, though now described in greater detail, has not been revised to Transit’s prejudice; and that there is no element of unfairness in our exercise now of any authority which we have to restrict future operations.” 55 M. C. C. 567, 585.
It is to be noted also that the examiner’s report on the White Line Purchase in 1938 recommended “that no truck service shall be conducted at other than rail rates.” On objection by appellee this requirement was eliminated. 5 M. C. C. 451, 458; 55 M. C. C. 567, 576 ff.; 90 E. Supp. 516, 518. Furthermore, the Commission required the ap-pellee to file tariffs for truck rates and truck billing with the Commission. 90 F. Supp. 516, 518. The District Court concluded as a matter of law as follows:
“3. Prior to and at the time of the approval of the White Line transaction and the issuance in said proceeding of plaintiff’s certificate, and at the time of the approval of the acquisition of the Frederickson certificate, the term, 'auxiliary to and supplemental of train service’ did not prohibit the rendition of all-motor service directly for the shipping public at all-motor rates in addition to service at rail rates in substitution for and in lieu of the rail service of plaintiff's affiliated railroad.”
What was in the Commission’s mind as to the meaning of auxiliary and supplemental at the time it issued its certificate, we cannot be sure. At present a motor service is auxiliary and supplemental to rail service, in the Commission’s view, when the railroad-affiliated motor carrier in a subordinate capacity aids the railroad in its rail operations by enabling the railroad to give better service or operate more cheaply rather than independently competing with other motor carriers. Undoubtedly the Commission has not consistently required each rail-affiliated motor carrier to forego motor billings or tariffs. Key points to break traffic are relatively new. 28 M. C. C. 5. Rail affiliates have been permitted to leave the line of the railroad to serve communities without other transportation service. Those divergences, however, are an exercise of the discretionary and supervisory power with which Congress has endowed the Commission. It is because Congress could not deal with the multitudinous and variable situations that arise that the Commission was given authority to adjust services within the limits of the Motor Carrier Act. § 208. The Commission has continually evidenced, as indicated above, by opinion and certification its intention to have rail-owned motor carriers serve in auxiliary and supplemental capacity to the railroads.
Appellees urge that the new conditions mark a new Commission policy; that it is such a change in the certificate as was condemned in the case of water carriers by United States v. Seatrain Lines, 329 U. S. 424, 428. Without relying upon the statutory differences between Commission power over motor and water carriers, pp. 429-432, we believe that case is inapplicable to these circumstances. In Seatrain a certificate was granted to carry “commodities generally.” For the Commission then to modify this to “in railroad cars only” or “except in railroad cars” would limit the freight authorized to be carried by the certificate. Transit’s certificate, on the other hand, required service auxiliary and supplemental to rails, and the modification was not a change of policy as to that but an additional requirement to insure coordinated service. The new conditions, pp. 425-426, supra, are of a character that aids rail operation and minimizes competition with over-the-road motor carriers. Such added conditions are not changes in or revocations of a certificate in whole or in part but a carrying out of the reservation in the certificate.
The Commission has expressed its policy to limit rail affiliates to services in aid of rail transportation by the phrase, perhaps too summary, auxiliary and supplemental. Though the phrase is difficult to define precisely, its general content is set out in Texas & Pacific Motor Transport Co. Application, 41 M. C. C. 721, 726, quoted n. 19, supra. While the practice of the Commission has varied in the conditions imposed, the purpose to have rail-connected motor carriers act in coordination with train service has not. Circumstances change. Different conditions are required under different circumstances to maintain the balance between rail and motor carriage. We do not think the meaning of auxiliary and supplemental is limited to the Commission’s practice at any particular time. So long as it may fairly be said that the practice required from the motor carrier falls within the meaning the Commission has given to auxiliary and supplemental, the condition is valid.
Such restrictions hamper railroad companies in the use of their physical facilities — stations, terminals, warehouses — their personnel and their capital in the development of their transportation enterprises to encompass all or as much of motor transportation as the roads may desire. The announced transportation policy of Congress did not permit, such development. We hold that the new conditions are within the limits covered by the reservation of power to impose such further limitations as might be found necessary “to insure that the service shall be auxiliary or supplementary to the train service” of The Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company.
Frederickson Purchase. — The statement of facts at the beginning of this opinion shows the Fredericksons possessed certificates issued under the proviso of § 206, the “grandfather clause.” Transit agreed to purchase these rights subject to the approval of the Commission. This approval was given by a report and order. The order approved the purchase of the “operating rights and property... subject to the terms and conditions set out in the findings in said report.” The findings complied with § 5 (2) (a) and (b) of the Transportation Act. They stated, “The Rock Island Motor Transit Company will be entitled to a certificate covering the previously-described portion of rights granted in Nos. MC-530 and MC-530 (Sub-No. 1), which rights are herein authorized to be unified with rights otherwise confirmed in The Rock Island Motor Transit Company, with duplications eliminated;... The words “previously-described portion of rights granted” cover the Frederickson certificates as “a motor-vehicle common carrier of general commodities over regular routes between” named points. The Frederickson certificates also covered irregular routes for certain commodities. These latter rights were not purchased. The rights purchased were over-the-road motor-carrier rights. Neither those certificates nor the report or order on the purchase application contained anything specifically limiting the operations to service auxiliary to and supplemental of the Rock Island train service. There was a finding, in the words of the proviso to § 5 (2) (b), that the purchase “will enable The Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company... to use service by motor vehicle to public advantage in its operations.” The transaction was consummated in January 1945, over six years after the approval of the White Line Purchase and over three years after the issue of that original certificate, here-inbefore discussed.
The basic question posed as to this purchase is similar to that in the White Line Purchase. Has the Commission power to place in the Frederickson certificates the modifications ordered for the White Line certificate? We will solve the problem by determining that the order approving the purchase has not the finality of a certificate but is rather only a tentative approach to the consummation of the purchase subject to changes in conditions and requirements. The power to issue the certificate with the White Line modified conditions follows, a priori, from what we have said in the foregoing division of this decision. This leaves unanswered the question of the power of the Commission to modify a railroad-affiliated motor carrier’s certificate so as to make its operation auxiliary to and supplemental of the rail service, when no reservation for or restriction to that effect has been placed in the order directing the issue of the certificate or the certificate itself. If any such procedure should be undertaken by the Commission, that answer should await a fully developed statement and argument by the interests affected. Our reasons for holding that the Commission may validly insert the proposed limitations in the certificate follow.
Closings of loans and purchases involve nice timing adjustments. The transportation industry is familiar with the complexities of closings involving clearances or impositions of prior and underlying mortgages and partition of obligations among syndicates of lenders or purchasers, from rail system mortgages to secure various classes of obligees in reorganizations to simple borrowings for trusteed equipment. It understands the business risks of purchase or sale ahead of final commitment by a separate entity. A request for a statement of the terms of the proposed certificate of convenience and necessity would doubtless have been complied with by the Commission. If not, the closing with Frederickson could have been made by escrow or otherwise simultaneously with the issue of the certificate.
Transit had had experience with the problems of coordination between rail and motor service. In this application it objected to a limitation on freight of immediately prior or immediately subsequent rail carriage. The limitation was not put in the report as a condition. While the report stressed the rail operating advantages of the use of trucks, it did not deal with the terms auxiliary and supplemental. If the problem of limitation of the certificate to motor service in rail operation occurred to the applicant or the Commission, precedents from the Barker case to the White Line application would have indicated an inclusion in the certificate of a limitation of auxiliary to and supplemental of rail service.
Transit maintains that the order is final; that the result is the same as though the service requirements of the order of approval were written into the operating certificate as directed by the statute. § 208. “The decisions of the Commission,” argues Transit, reflect “finality of action.” Neither of the latter two cases in the note bear in any way on the present point. In both, certificates had been issued and the Commission said, in so many words, the certificates are final. In the Smith Bros. case, it added:
“We may issue decision upon decision, and order upon order, on an application for a certificate so long as sufficient reason therefor appears and until all controversy is determined, but once a certificate, duly and regularly issued, becomes effective, our authority to terminate it is expressly marked off and limited. All the antecedent decisions and orders are essentially procedural in character, and may be set aside, modified, or vacated, but the certificate marks the end of the proceeding, just as the entry of a final judgment or decree marks the end of a court proceeding.” P. 472.
What slight bearing Seatrain has weighs on the side of the interlocutory character of the approval order. The sentence referred to reads:
“But, as the Commission has said as to motor carrier certificates, while the procedural 'orders’ antecedent to a water carrier certificate can be modified from time to time, the certificate marks the end of that proceeding.” P. 432.
As under the statute, §§ 206, 207, 208, motor carriers must have certificates authorizing their operations, we conclude that the certificate is the final act or order that validates the operation. Until its form and content are fixed by delivery to the applicant, the power to frame it in accordance with statutory directions persists.
It may be said that, as the order permitted Transit to purchase the Frederickson “operating rights,” it must have freedom to use all the seller’s motor-carrier privileges; that the absence of a reservation defeats Commission power to insert “auxiliary and supplemental” restrictions in the certificate. Since we hold the order of approval is not the final order, we reject the premise.
Other Objections. — A number of other objections to the enforcement of the orders were presented by appellees and considered by the Court. We comment briefly on those we think merit notice. “Grandfather rights” under § 206 of the Transportation Act were the basis of the White and Frederickson applications for certificates of convenience and necessity. Transit acquired the sellers’ rights to certificates. Appellees contend that as the sellers were entitled to broader operating rights than are allowed the purchaser under the modified certificate, the right to “substantial parity between future operations and prior bona fide operations” guaranteed by § 206 is infringed by limiting the motor service to that auxiliary and supplemental to rail service. A railroad purchaser does not necessarily receive all rights a certificate holder possesses. Because of the National Transportation Policy and § 5, making a railroad’s purchase subject to conditions, as hereinbefore described, approval may be conditioned by the Commission on the railroad purchaser’s willingness to accept a narrower certificate than that possessed by the seller.
Finally, the appellee asserts that its certificate is property akin to a franchise; that it has invested large sums in the acquisition and equipment of its routes and service, and that what it alleges is revocation deprives it of property without due process of law. We think that our previous holding in this decision that Transit took its certificate and obtained approval of its acquisitions
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether an arrest is lawful under the Fourth Amendment when the criminal offense for which there is probable cause to arrest is not “closely related” to the offense stated by the arresting officer at the time of arrest.
I
A
On the night of November 22,1997, a disabled automobile and its passengers were stranded on the shoulder of State Route 16, a divided highway, in Pierce County, Washington. Alford v. Haner, 333 F. 3d 972, 974 (CA9 2003); App. 94, 98. Respondent Jerome Alford pulled his car off the road behind the disabled vehicle, activating his “wig-wag” headlights (which flash the left and right lights alternately). As he pulled off the road, Officer Joi Haner of the Washington State Patrol, one of the two petitioners here, passed the disabled car from the opposite direction. 333 F. 3d, at 974. He turned around to check on the motorists at the first opportunity, and when he arrived, respondent, who had begun helping the motorists change a flat tire, hurried back to his car and drove away. Ibid. The stranded motorists asked Haner if respondent was a “cop”; they said that respondent’s statements, and his flashing, wig-wag headlights, had given them that impression. Ibid.; App. 96. They also informed Haner that as respondent hurried off he left his flashlight behind. Id., at 97.
On the basis of this information, Haner radioed his supervisor, Sergeant Gerald Devenpeck, the other petitioner here, that he was concerned respondent was an “impersonator” or “wannabe cop.” Id., at 97-98. He pursued respondent’s vehicle and pulled it over. 333 F. 3d, at 975. Through the passenger-side window, Haner observed that respondent was listening to the Kitsap County Sheriff’s Office police frequency on a special radio, and that handcuffs and a hand-held police scanner were in the car. Ibid. These facts bolstered Haner’s suspicion that respondent was impersonating a police officer. App. 106, 107. Haner thought, moreover, that respondent seemed untruthful and evasive: He told Haner that he had worked previously for the “State Patrol,” but under further questioning, claimed instead to have worked in law enforcement in Texas and at a shipyard. Ibid. He claimed that his flashing headlights were part of a recently installed car-alarm system, and acted as though he was unable to trigger the system; but during these feigned efforts Haner noticed that respondent avoided pushing a button near his knee, which Haner suspected (correctly) to be the switch for the lights. 333 F. 3d, at 975; App. 108.
Sergeant Devenpeck arrived on the scene a short time later. After Haner informed Devenpeck of the basis for his belief that respondent had been impersonating a pólice officer, id., at 110, Devenpeck approached respondent’s vehicle and inquired about the wig-wag headlights, 333 F. 3d, at 975. As before, respondent said that the headlights were part of his alarm system and that he did not know how to activate them. App. 52, 138-139. Like Haner, Devenpeck was skeptical of respondent’s answers. In the course of his questioning, Devenpeck noticed a tape recorder on the passenger seat of respondent’s car, with the play and record buttons depressed. 333 F. 3d, at 975. He ordered Haner to remove respondent from the car, played the recorded tape, and found that respondent had been recording his conversations with the officers. Devenpeck informed respondent that he was under arrest for a violation of the Washington Privacy Act, Wash. Rev. Code §9.73.030 (1994). 333 F. 3d, at 975; App. 144-145. Respondent protested that a State Court-of-Appeals decision, a copy of which he claimed was in his glove compartment, permitted him to record roadside conversations with police officers. 333 F. 3d, at 975; App. 42, 67-68. Devenpeck returned to his car, reviewed the language of the Privacy Act, and attempted unsuccessfully to reach a prosecutor to confirm that the arrest was lawful. Id., at 151-154. Believing that the text of the Privacy Act confirmed that respondent’s recording was unlawful, he directed Officer Haner to take respondent to jail. Id., at 154.
A short time later; Devenpeck reached by phone Mark Lindquist, a deputy county prosecutor, to whom he recounted the events leading to • respondent’s arrest. 333 F. 3d, at 975. The two discussed a series of possible criminal offenses, including violation of the Privacy Act, impersonating a police officer, and making a false representation to an officer. App. 177-178. Lindquist advised that there was “clearly probable cause,” id., at 179, and suggested that respondent also be charged with “obstructing a public servant” “based on the runaround [he] gave [Devenpeck],” id., at 157. Devenpeck rejected this suggestion, explaining that the State Patrol does not, as a matter of policy, “stack charges” against an arrestee. Id., at 157-158.
At booking, Haner charged respondent with violating the State Privacy Act, id., at 32-33, and issued a ticket to respondent for his flashing headlights under Wash. Rev. Code §46.37.280(3) (1994), App. 24-25. Under state law, respondent could be detained on the latter offense only for the period of time “reasonably necessary” to issue a citation. §46.64.015. The state trial court subsequently dismissed both charges. App. 10, 29.
B
Respondent filed suit against petitioners in Federal District Court. He asserted a federal cause of action under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, and a state cause of action for unlawful arrest and imprisonment, both claims resting upon the allegation that petitioners arrested him without probable cause in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. 333 F. 3d, at 975. The District Court denied petitioners’ motion for summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity, and the case proceeded to trial. Alford v. Washington State Police, Case No. C99-5586RJB (WD Wash., Nov. 30, 2000), App. to Pet. for Cert. 40a. The jury was instructed that, for respondent to prevail on either his federal- or state-law claim, he must demonstrate that petitioners arrested him without probable cause, App. 199-201; and that probable cause exists “if the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer’s knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to conclude that the suspect has committed, is committing, or was about to commit a crime,” id., at 201. The jury was also instructed that, at the time of respondent’s arrest, a State Court-of-Appeals decision, State v. Flora, 68 Wash. App. 802, 845 P. 2d 1355 (1992), had clearly established that respondent’s taping of petitioners was not a crime, App. 202. And the jury was directed that it must find for petitioners if a reasonable officer in the same circumstances would have believed respondent’s detention was lawful. Id., at 200. Respondent did not object to any of these instructions. The jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of petitioners. 333 F. 3d, at 975. The District Court denied respondent’s motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, a new trial, and respondent appealed. Ibid.; App. to Pet. for Cert. 25a.
A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, finding “no evidence to support the jury’s verdict,” 333 F. 3d, at 975. The majority concluded that petitioners could not have had probable cause to arrest because they cited only the Privacy Act charge and “[t]ape recording officers conducting a traffic stop is not a crime in Washington.” Id., at 976. The majority rejected petitioners’ claim that probable cause existed to arrest respondent for the offenses of impersonating a law-enforcement officer, Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.60.040(3) (1994), and obstructing a law-enforcement officer, §9A.76.020, because, it said, those offenses were not “closely related” to the offense invoked by Devenpeck as he took respondent into custody, 333 F. 3d, at 976-977. The majority also held that there was no evidence to support petitioners’ claim of qualified immunity, since, given the Washington Court of Appeals’ decision in Flora, “no objectively.reasonable officer could have concluded that arresting [respondent] for taping the traffic stop was permissible,” 333 F. 3d, at 979. Judge Gould dissented on the ground that it was objectively reasonable for petitioners to believe that respondent had violated the Privacy Act. See id., at 980. We granted certiorari. 541 U. S. 987 (2004).
HH HH
The Fourth Amendment protects [t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” In conformity with the rule at common law, a warrantless arrest by a law officer is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment where there is probable cause to believe that a criminal offense has been or is being committed. See United States v. Watson, 423 U. S. 411, 417-424 (1976); Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160, 175-176 (1949). Whether probable cause exists depends upon the reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the facts known to the arresting officer at the time of the arrest. Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U. S. 366, 371 (2003). In this case, the Court of Appeals held that the probable-cause inquiry is further confined to the known facts bearing upon the offense actually invoked at the time of arrest, and that (in addition) the offense supported by these known facts must be “closely related” to the offense that the officer invoked. 333 F. 3d, at 976. We find no basis in precedent or reason for this limitation.
Our cases make clear that an arresting officer’s state of mind (except for the facts that he knows) is irrelevant to the existence of probable cause. See Whren v. United States, 517 U. S. 806, 812-813 (1996) (reviewing cases); Arkansas v. Sullivan, 532 U. S. 769 (2001) (per curiam). That is to say, his subjective reason for making the arrest need not be the criminal offense as to which the known facts provide probable cause. As we have repeatedly explained, “ ‘the fact that the officer does not have the state of mind which is hypothe-cated by the reasons which provide the legal justification for the officer’s action does not invalidate the action taken as long as the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify that action.’” Whren, supra, at 813 (quoting Scott v. United States, 436 U. S. 128, 138 (1978)). “[T]he Fourth Amendment’s concern with ‘reasonableness’ allows certain actions to be taken in certain circumstances, whatever the subjective intent.” Whren, supra, at 814. “[E]venhanded law enforcement is best achieved by the application of objective standards of conduct, rather than standards that depend upon the subjective state of mind of the officer.” Horton v. California, 496 U. S. 128, 138 (1990).
The rule that the. offense establishing probable cause must be “closely related” to, and based on the same conduct as, the offense identified by the arresting officer at the time of arrest is inconsistent with this precedent. Such a rule makes the lawfulness of an arrest turn upon the motivation of the arresting officer — eliminating, as validating probable cause, facts that played no part in the officer’s expressed subjective reason for making the arrest, and offenses that are not “closely related” to that subjective reason. See, e. g., Sheehy v. Plymouth, 191 F. 3d 15, 20 (CA1 1999); Trejo v. Perez, 693 F. 2d 482, 485-486 (CA5 1982). This means that the constitutionality of an arrest under a given set of known facts will “vary from place to place and from time to time,” Whren, supra, at 815, depending on whether the arresting officer states the reason for the detention and, if so, whether he correctly identifies a general class of offense for which, probable cause exists. An arrest made by a knowledgeable, veteran officer would be valid, whereas an arrest made by a rookie in precisely the same circumstances would not. We see no reason to ascribe to the Fourth Amendment such arbitrarily variable protection.
Those who support the “closely related offense” rule say that, although it is aimed at rooting out the subjective vice of arrests made for the wrong reason, it does so by objective means — that is, by reference to the arresting officer’s statement of his reason. The same argument was made in Whren, supra, in defense of the proposed rule that a traffic stop can be declared invalid for malicious motivation when it is justified only by an offense which standard police practice does not make the basis for a stop. That rule, it was said, “attempt[s] to root out subjective vices through objective means,” id., at 814. We rejected the argument there, and we reject it again here. Subjective intent of the arresting officer, however it is determined (and of course subjective intent is always determined by objective means), is simply no basis for invalidating an arrest. Those are lawfully arrested whom the facts known to the arresting officers give probable cause to arrest.
Finally, the “closely related offense” rule is condemned by its perverse consequences. While it is assuredly good police practice to inform a person of the reason for his arrest at the time he is taken into custody, we have never held that to be constitutionally required. Hence, the predictable consequence of a rule limiting the probable-cause inquiry to offenses closely related to (and supported by the same facts as) those identified by the arresting officer is not, as respondent contends, that officers will cease making sham arrests on the hope that such arrests will later be validated, but rather that officers will cease providing reasons for arrest. And even if this option were to be foreclosed by adoption of a statutory or constitutional requirement, officers would simply give every reason for which probable cause could conceivably exist.
The facts of this case exemplify the arbitrary consequences of a “closely related offense” rule. Officer Haner’s initial stop of respondent was motivated entirely by the suspicion that he was impersonating a police officer. App. 106. Before pulling respondent over, Haner indicated by radio that this was his concern; during the stop, Haner asked respondent whether he was actively employed in law enforcement and why his car had wig-wag headlights; and when Sergeant Devenpeck arrived, Haner told him why he thought respondent was a “wannabe cop,” id., at 98. In addition, in the course of interrogating respondent, both officers became convinced that he was not answering their questions truthfully and, with respect to the wig-wag headlights, that he was affirmatively trying to mislead them. Only after these suspicions had developed did Devenpeck discover the taping, place respondent under arrest, and offer the Privacy Act as the reason. Because of the “closely related offense” rule, Devenpeck’s actions render irrelevant both Haner’s developed suspicions that respondent was impersonating a police officer and the officers’ shared belief that respondent obstructed their investigation. The outcome under the “closely related offense” rule might well have been different if Haner, rather than Devenpeck, had made the arrest, on the stated basis of his suspicions; if Devenpeck had not abided the county’s policy against stacking charges; or if either officer had made the arrest without stating the grounds. We have consistently rejected a conception of the Fourth Amendment that would produce such haphazard results. See Whren, 517 U. S., at 815.
* * *
Respondent contended below that petitioners lacked probable cause to arrest him for obstructing a law-enforcement officer or for impersonating a law-enforcement officer. Because the Court of Appeals held that those offenses were legally irrelevant, it did not decide the question. We decline to engage in this inquiry for the first time here. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Ninth Circuit and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The Chief Justice took no part in the decision of this case.
The relevant provision of the Washington Privacy Act states:
“Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the state of Washington, its agencies, and political subdivisions to intercept, or record any . . . [p]rivate conversation, by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record or transmit such conversation regardless how the device is powered or actuated without first obtaining the consent of all the persons engaged in the conversation.” Wash. Rev. Code § 9.78.030(1)(b) (1994).
At least one Court of Appeals has adopted a variation of the “closely related offense” rule which looks not to the offense stated by the officer at the time of arrest, but to the offense given by the officer at booking. See Gassner v. Garland, 864 F. 2d 394, 398 (CA5 1989); but see Sheehy v. Plymouth, 191 F. 3d 15, 20 (CA1 1999) (holding that an arrest cannot be justified by an offense given at booking when the offense asserted by the officer at the time of arrest was not closely related). Most of our discussion in this opinion, and our conclusion of invalidity, applies to this variation as well.
Even absent a requirement that an individual be informed of the reason for arrest when he is taken into custody, he will not be left to wonder for long. “[Pjersons arrested without a warrant must promptly be brought before a neutral magistrate for a judicial determination of probable cause.” County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U. S. 44, 53 (1991).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Rehnquist
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which The Chief Justice, Justice White, and Justice O’Connor joined.
The central question in this case is whether Florida may constitutionally impose the death penalty on petitioner Elwood Barclay when one of the “aggravating circumstances” relied upon by the trial judge to support the sentence was not among those established by the Florida death penalty statute.
The facts, as found by the sentencing judge and quoted by the Florida Supreme Court, are as follows:
“[T]he four defendants were part of a group that termed itself the ‘BLACK LIBERATION ARMY’ (BLA), and whose apparent sole purpose was to indiscriminately kill white persons and to start a revolution and a racial war.
“The testimony showed that on the evening of June 17, 1974, Dougan, Barclay, Crittendon, Evans and William Hearn set out in a car armed with a twenty two caliber pistol and a knife with the intent to kill . . . any white person that they came upon under such advantageous circumstances that they could murder him, her or them.
“That as they drove around the City of Jacksonville they made several stops and observed white persons as possible victims, but decided that the circumstances were not advantageous and that they might be observed or thwarted .... At one stop, Dougan wrote out a note — which was to be placed on the body of the victim ultimately chosen for death.
“Eventually the five men headed for Jacksonville Beach where they picked up a hitch hiker, eighteen year old, Stephen Anthony Orlando. Against his will and over his protest they drove him to an isolated trash dump, ordered him out of the car, threw him down and Barclay repeatedly stabbed him with a knife. Dougan then put his foot on Orlando’s head and shot him twice— once in the cheek and once in the ear — killing him instantly.
“The evidence showed that none of the defendants knew or had ever seen Orlando before they murdered him. The note, which Dougan had previously written, was stuck to Orlando’s body by the knife of the murderers. The note read:
“‘Warning to the oppressive state. No longer will your atrocities and brutalizing of black people be unpunished. The black man is no longer asleep. The revolution has begun and the oppressed will be victorious. The revolution will end when we are free. The Black Revolutionary Army. All power to the people.’ . . .
“Subsequent to the murder the defendants Barclay and Dougan . . . made a number of tape recordings concerning the murder. These recordings were mailed to the [victim’s mother] and to radio and television stations. All of the tapes contained much the same in content and intent. [The court then reproduced typical excerpts from transcripts of the tapes, which included the following:]
“ ‘The reason Stephen was only shot twice in the head was because we had a jive pistol. It only shot twice and then it jammed; you can tell it must have been made in America because it wasn’t worth a shit. He was stabbed in the back, in the chest and the stomach, ah, it was beautiful. You should have seen it. Ah, I enjoyed every minute of it. I loved watching the blood gush from his eyes. . . .’
“‘He died in style, though, begging, begging and pleading for mercy, just as black people did when you took them and hung them to the trees, burned their houses down, threw bombs in the same church that practices the same religion that you forced on these people, my people.
“‘We are everywhere; you cannot hide from us. You have told your people to get off the streets and to stay home. That will not help, for one night they will come home and we will be there waiting. It has been said, look for us and you cannot see us; listen for us and you cannot hear us; feel for us and you cannot touch us. These are the characteristics of an urban guerilla.’” Barclay v. State, 343 So. 2d 1266, 1267-1269 (1977).
Barclay and Dougan were convicted by a jury of first-degree murder. As required by the Florida death penalty statute, Fla. Stat. §921.141(1) (1977), a separate sentencing hearing was held before the same jury. The jury rendered advisory sentences under §921.141(2), recommending that Dougan be sentenced to death and, by a 7 to 5 vote, that Barclay be sentenced to life imprisonment. The trial judge, after receiving a presentence report, decided to sentence both men to death. He made written findings of fact concerning aggravating and mitigating circumstances as required by §921.141(3). App. 1-53. The trial judge found that several of the aggravating circumstances set out in the statute were present. He found that Barclay had knowingly created a great risk of death to many persons, § 921.141(5)(c), had committed the murder while engaged in a kidnaping, § 921.141(5)(d), had endeavored to disrupt governmental functions and law enforcement, §921.141(5)(g), and had been especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel. § 921.141(5)(h). See 343 So. 2d, at 1271.
The trial judge did not find any mitigating circumstances. He noted in particular that Barclay had an extensive criminal record, and therefore did not qualify for the mitigating circumstance of having no significant history of prior criminal activity. §921.141(6)(a). He found that Barclay’s record constituted an aggravating, rather than a mitigating, circumstance. 343 So. 2d, at 1270, and n. 2. The trial judge also noted that the aggravating circumstance of §921.141(5)(a) (“The capital felony was committed by a convict under sentence of imprisonment”) was not present, but restated Barclay’s criminal record and again found it to be an aggravating circumstance. App. 33-34. He made a similar finding as to the aggravating circumstance of § 921.141(5)(b) (“The defendant was previously convicted of another capital felony or of a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person”). Barclay had been convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit the felony of grand larceny, but the trial judge did not know whether it involved the use or threat of violence. He pointed out that crimes such as this often involve the use or threat of violence, and stated that “there are more aggravating than mitigating circumstances.” Id., at 34-35.
The trial judge concluded that “[T]HERE ARE SUFFICIENT AND GREAT AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH EXIST TO JUSTIFY THE SENTENCE OF DEATH AS TO BOTH DEFENDANTS.” Id., at 48. He therefore rejected part of the jury’s recommendation, and sentenced Barclay as well as Dougan to death.
On the automatic appeal provided by Fla. Stat. §921.141 (4) (1977), the Florida Supreme Court affirmed. It approved the findings of the trial judge and his decision to reject the jury’s recommendation that Barclay be sentenced to life imprisonment. It concluded that “[t]his is a case . . . where the jury did not act reasonably in the imposition of sentence, and the trial judge properly rejected one of their recommendations.” 343 So. 2d, at 1271 (footnotes omitted).
This Court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari. 439 U. S. 892 (1978). However, the Florida Supreme Court later vacated its judgment, sua sponte, in light of our decision in Gardner v. Florida, 430 U. S. 349 (1977), and remanded to the trial court to give Barclay a full opportunity to rebut the information in the presentence report that was prepared for the trial judge. The trial court held a resentencing hearing, and reaffirmed the death sentence on the basis of findings that are essentially identical to its original findings. App. 82-141. On appeal, the Florida Supreme Court again affirmed, holding that Barclay had not been denied any rights under Gardner. 411 So. 2d 1310 (1981). Rehearing was denied by an equally divided court. Ibid.
I
Barclay has raised numerous objections to the trial judge’s findings. The Florida courts declined to reconsider these arguments in the resentencing proceedings. The resentenc-ing hearing was limited to ensuring that Barclay received all the rights to which he was entitled under Gardner. The Florida Supreme Court stated that it had “previously analyzed,” 411 So. 2d, at 1311, Barclay’s arguments, which were directed “against the findings previously reviewed here and affirmed,” and declined to “abrogate the ‘law of the case’” on these questions. Id., at 1310. Since the Florida Supreme Court held that it had considered Barclay’s claims in his first appeal, and simply refused to reconsider its previous decision in the second appeal, those claims are properly before us. Reece v. Georgia, 350 U. S. 85, 86-87 (1955).
A
Barclay argues that the trial judge improperly found that his criminal record was an “aggravating circumstance.” The State concedes that this is correct: Florida law plainly provides that a defendant’s prior criminal record is not a proper “aggravating circumstance.” Mikenas v. State, 367 So. 2d 606, 610 (Fla. 1978).
B
Barclay also argues that the trial judge improperly found the “under sentence of imprisonment” and “previously been convicted of a [violent] felony” aggravating circumstances. The Florida Supreme Court, however, construed the trial judge’s opinion as finding that these aggravating circumstances “essentially had no relevance here.” 343 So. 2d, at 1271 (footnote omitted). We see no reason to disturb that conclusion. The trial judge plainly stated that Barclay “was not under sentence of imprisonment.” App. 120. The trial judge also stated in the same paragraph that Barclay’s criminal record “is an aggravating circumstance,” id., at 121, but this is simply a repetition of the error noted above.
Barclay also challenges the findings on several other aggravating circumstances. He claims that the trial court improperly found that he caused a great risk of death to many people, that the murder was committed during a kidnaping, that the murder was committed to disrupt the lawful exercise of a governmental function or the enforcement of the laws, and that the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel. All of these findings were made by the trial court and approved by the Florida Supreme Court under Florida law. Our review of these findings is limited to the question whether they are so unprincipled or arbitrary as to somehow violate the United States Constitution. We think they were not. It was not irrational or arbitrary to apply these aggravating circumstances to the facts of this case.
c
Barclay also contends that his sentence must be vacated because the trial judge, in explaining his sentencing decision, discussed the racial motive for the murder and compared it with his own experiences in the Army in World War II, when he saw Nazi concentration camps and their victims. Barclay claims that the trial judge improperly added a non-statutory aggravating circumstance of racial hatred and should not have considered his own experiences.
We reject this argument. The United States Constitution does not prohibit a trial judge from taking into account the elements of racial hatred in this murder. The judge in this case found Barclay’s desire to start a race war relevant to several statutory aggravating factors. The judge’s discussion is neither irrational nor arbitrary. In particular, the comparison between this case and the Nazi concentration camps does not offend the United States Constitution. Such a comparison is not an inappropriate way of weighing the “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel” statutory aggravating circumstance in an attempt to determine whether it warrants imposition of the death penalty.
Any sentencing decision calls for the exercise of judgment. It is neither possible nor desirable for a person to whom the State entrusts an important judgment to decide in a vacuum, as if he had no experiences. The thrust of our decisions on capital punishment has been that “ ‘discretion must be suitably directed and limited so as to minimize the risk of wholly arbitrary and capricious action.”’ Zant v. Stephens, 462 U. S. 862, 874 (1983), quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 189 (1976) (opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.). This very day we said in another capital case:
“In returning a conviction, the jury must satisfy itself that the necessary elements of the particular crime have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In fixing a penalty, however, there is no similar ‘central issue’ from which the jury’s attention may be diverted. Once the jury finds that the defendant falls within the legislatively defined category of persons eligible for the death penalty, as did respondent’s jury in determining the truth of the alleged special circumstance, the jury then is free to consider a myriad of factors to determine whether death is the appropriate punishment.” California v. Ramos, post, at 1008.
We have never suggested that the United States Constitution requires that the sentencing process should be transformed into a rigid and mechanical parsing of statutory aggravating factors. But to attempt to separate the sen-tencer’s decision from his experiences would inevitably do precisely that. It is entirely fitting for the moral, factual, and legal judgment of judges and juries to play a meaningful role in sentencing. We expect that sentencers will exercise their discretion in their own way and to the best of their ability. As long as that discretion is guided in a constitutionally adequate way, see Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U. S. 242 (1976), and as long as the decision is not so wholly arbitrary as to offend the Constitution, the Eighth Amendment cannot and should not demand more.
II
In this case the state courts have considered an aggravating factor that is not a proper aggravating circumstance under state law. Barclay argues that a system that permits this sort of consideration does not meet the standards established by this Court under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments for imposition of the death penalty. As in Zant, supra, at 884, the question whether Barclay’s sentence must be vacated depends on the function of the finding of aggravating circumstances under Florida law and on the reason why this aggravating circumstance is invalid.
A
The Florida statute at issue in this case was upheld in Proffitt v. Florida, supra. The opinion of Justices Stewart, Powell, and Stevens described the mechanics of the statute as follows:
“[I]f a defendant is found guilty of a capital offense, a separate evidentiary hearing is held before the trial judge and jury to determine his sentence. Evidence may be presented on any matter the judge deems relevant to sentencing and must include matters relating to certain legislatively specified aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Both the prosecution and the defense may present argument....
“At the conclusion of the hearing the jury is directed to consider ‘[wjhether sufficient mitigating circumstances exist. . . which outweigh the aggravating circumstances found to exist; and . . . [biased on these considerations, whether the defendant should be sentenced to life [imprisonment] or death.’ §§ 921.141(2)(b) and (c) (Supp. 1976-1977). The jury’s verdict is determined by majority vote. It is only advisory; the actual sentence is determined by the trial judge. The Florida Supreme Court has stated, however, that ‘[i]n order to sustain a sentence of death following a jury recommendation of
life, the facts suggesting a sentence of death should be so clear and convincing that virtually no reasonable person could differ.’ Tedder v. State, 322 So. 2d 908, 910 (1975). . . .
“The trial judge is also directed to weigh the statutory aggravating and mitigating circumstances when he determines the sentence to be imposed on a defendant. The statute requires that if the trial court imposes a sentence of death, ‘it shall set forth in writing its findings upon which the sentence of death is based as to the facts: (a) [t]hat sufficient [statutory] aggravating circumstances exist . . . and (b) [t]hat there are insufficient [statutory][ ] mitigating circumstances ... to outweigh the aggravating circumstances.’ §921.141(3) (Supp. 1976-1977).
“The statute provides for automatic review by the Supreme Court of Florida of all cases in which a death sentence has been imposed. §921.141(4) (Supp. 1976-1977). The law differs from that of Georgia in that it does not require the court to conduct any specific form of review. Since, however, the trial judge must justify the imposition of a death sentence with written findings, meaningful appellate review of each such sentence is made possible, and the Supreme Court of Florida, like its Georgia counterpart, considers its function to be to ‘[guarantee] that the [aggravating and mitigating] reasons present in one case will reach a similar result to that reached under similar circumstances in another case. ... If a defendant is sentenced to die, this Court can review that case in light of the other decisions and determine whether or not the punishment is too great.’ State v. Dixon, 283 So. 2d 1, 10 (1973).” 428 U. S., at 248-251 (footnotes omitted) (emphasis supplied).
Thus the Florida statute, like the Georgia statute at issue in Zant v. Stephens, 462 U. S. 862 (1983), requires the sentencer to find at least one valid statutory aggravating circumstance before the death penalty may even be considered, and permits the trial court to admit any evidence that may be relevant to the proper sentence. Unlike the Georgia statute, however, Florida law requires the sentencer to balance statutory aggravating circumstances against all mitigating circumstances and does not permit nonstatutory aggravating circumstances to enter into this weighing process. E. g., Mikenas v. State, 367 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1978). The statute does not establish any special standard for this weighing process.
Although the Florida statute did not change significantly between Proffitt and the decision below, the Florida Supreme Court has developed a body of case law in this area. One question that has arisen is whether defendants must be resentenced when trial courts erroneously consider improper aggravating factors. If the trial court found that some mitigating circumstances exist, the case will generally be remanded for resentencing. Elledge v. State, 346 So. 2d 998, 1002-1003 (Fla. 1977). See, e. g., Moody v. State, 418 So. 2d 989, 995 (Fla. 1982); Riley v. State, 366 So. 2d 19, 22 (Fla. 1978). If the trial court properly found that there are no mitigating circumstances, the Florida Supreme Court applies a harmless-error analysis. Elledge, supra, at 1002-1003. See, e. g., White v. State, 403 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 1981); Sireci v. State, 399 So. 2d 964, 971 (Fla. 1981). In such a case, “a reversal of the death sentence would not necessarily be required,” Ferguson v. State, 417 So. 2d 639, 646 (Fla. 1982), because the error might be harmless.
The Florida Supreme Court has not always found that consideration of improper aggravating factors is harmless, even when no mitigating circumstances exist. In Lewis v. State, 398 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 1981), for example, the defendant shot the victim once in the head through his bedroom window, killing him instantly. The jury recommended life imprisonment, but the trial judge sentenced Lewis to death, finding four aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstances. The Florida Supreme Court found that the evidence did not support three of the aggravating circumstances. It did find that the “under sentence of imprisonment” aggravating circumstance was properly applied because Lewis was on parole from a prison sentence when he committed the crime. On these facts, and with only this one relatively weak aggravating circumstance left standing, the Florida Supreme Court did not find harmless error, but rather remanded for resentencing.
The Florida Supreme Court has placed another check on the harmless-error analysis permitted by Elledge. When the jury has recommended life imprisonment, the trial judge may not impose a death sentence unless “the facts suggesting a sentence of death [are] so clear and convincing that virtually no reasonable person could differ.” Tedder v. State, 322 So. 2d 908, 910 (1975). In Williams v. State, 386 So. 2d 538, 543 (1980), and Dobbert v. State, 375 So. 2d 1069, 1071 (1979), the Florida Supreme Court reversed the trial judges’ findings of several aggravating circumstances. In each case at least one valid aggravating circumstance remained, and there were no mitigating circumstances. In each case, however, the Florida Supreme Court concluded that in the absence of the improperly found aggravating circumstances the Tedder test could not be met. Therefore it reduced the sentences to life imprisonment.
B
The trial judge’s consideration of Barclay’s criminal record as an aggravating circumstance was improper as a matter of state law: that record did not fall within the definition of any statutory aggravating circumstance, and Florida law prohibits consideration of nonstatutory aggravating circumstances. In this case, as in Zant v. Stephens, 462 U. S., at 887-888, nothing in the United States Constitution prohibited the trial court from considering Barclay’s criminal record. The trial judge did not consider any constitutionally protected behavior to be an aggravating circumstance. See id., at 884. And, again as in Zant, nothing in the Eighth Amendment or in Florida law prohibits the admission of the evidence of Barclay’s criminal record. On the contrary, this evidence was properly introduced to prove that the mitigating circumstance of absence of a criminal record did not exist. This statutory aggravating circumstance “plausibly described aspects of the defendant’s background that were properly before the [trial judge] and whose accuracy was unchallenged.” Id., at 887.
C
The crux of the issue, then, is whether the trial judge’s consideration of this improper aggravating circumstance so infects the balancing process created by the Florida statute that it is constitutionally impermissible for the Florida Supreme Court to let the sentence stand. It is clear that the Court in Proffitt did not accept this notion. Indeed, the joint opinion announcing the judgment listed the four aggravating circumstances that had been found against Proffitt, and one of them — “the petitioner has the propensity to commit murder” — was not and is not a statutory aggravating circumstance in Florida. 428 U. S., at 246 (opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.).
That opinion did state:
“The petitioner notes further that Florida’s sentencing system fails to challenge the discretion of the jury or judge because it allows for consideration of nonstatutory aggravating factors. In the only case to approve such a practice, Sawyer v. State, 313 So. 2d 680 (1975), the Florida court recast the trial court’s six nonstatutory aggravating factors into four aggravating circumstances — two of them statutory. As noted earlier, it is unclear that the Florida court would ever approve a death sentence based entirely on nonstatutory aggravating circumstances. See n. 8, supra,” Id., at 256-257, n. 14.
While this statement may properly be read to question the propriety of a sentence based entirely on nonstatutory aggravating factors, it is clear that the opinion saw no constitutional defect in a sentence based on both statutory and nonstatutory aggravating circumstances. See also California v. Ramos, post, at 1007-1009, quoting Zant, supra, at 878.
Barclay’s brief is interlarded with rhetorical references to “[ljawless findings of statutory aggravating circumstances,” Brief for Petitioner 33, “protective pronouncements which . . . seem to be turned on and off from case to case without notice or explanation,” id., at 93, and others in a similar vein. These varied assertions seem to suggest that the Florida Supreme Court failed to properly apply its own cases in upholding petitioner’s death sentence. The obvious answer to this question, as indicated in the previous discussion, is that mere errors of state law are not the concern of this Court, Gryger v. Burke, 334 U. S. 728, 731 (1948), unless they rise for some other reason to the level of a denial of rights protected by the United States Constitution.
In any event, we do not accept Barclay’s premise. Cases such as Lewis, supra, Williams, supra, and Dobbert, supra, indicate that the Florida Supreme Court does not apply its harmless-error analysis in an automatic or mechanical fashion, but rather upholds death sentences on the basis of this analysis only when it actually finds that the error is harmless. There is no reason why the Florida Supreme Court cannot examine the balance struck by the trial judge and decide that the elimination of improperly considered aggravating circumstances could not possibly affect the balance. See n. 9, supra. “What is important... is an individualized determination on the basis of the character of the individual and the circumstances of the crime.” Zant, supra, at 879 (emphasis in original).
In this case, as in Zant, supra, at 890, our decision is buttressed by the Florida Supreme Court’s practice of reviewing each death sentence to compare it with other Florida capital cases and to determine whether “the punishment is too great.” State v. Dixon, 283 So. 2d 1, 10 (1973). See, e. g., Blair v. State, 406 So. 2d 1103, 1109 (Fla. 1981). It is further buttressed by the rule prohibiting the trial judge from overriding a jury recommendation of life imprisonment unless “virtually no reasonable person could differ.” Tedder v. State, supra, at 910.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is
Affirmed.
Evans and Crittendon, who did not actually kill Orlando, were convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to 199 years in prison. Hearn pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and testified for the prosecution.
The Florida Supreme Court stated:
“The trial judge noted five aborted attempts to select a victim from the streets of Jacksonville before Stephen Criando was chosen, plus the taped threat made to white Jacksonville citizens that a race war had begun and none would be safe.” 343 So. 2d, at 1271, n. 4.
The Florida Supreme Court stated:
“The basis for this finding was the judge’s observation that the notion of a race war essentially threatened the foundations of American society.”
Id., at 1271, n. 5.
The Florida Supreme Court noted that the tape recordings petitioner and Dougan made “explained how Stephen Orlando had begged for his life while being beaten and stabbed before Dougan ‘executed’ him with two pistol shots in the head.” Id., at 1271, n. 6.
The differences between this case and Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U. S. 420 (1980), are readily apparent. Godfrey killed his wife and his mother-in-law with a single shotgun blast each. Each died instantly. There was no torture or aggravated battery. The state court nonetheless found that the murder was “outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman in that it involved torture, depravity of mind, or an aggravated battery to the victim.” Ga. Code §27-2534.1(b)(7) (1978). It found no other aggravating circumstances. We concluded that, on the facts of the case, such a finding could only have resulted from a “standardless and unchannelled” decision based on “the uncontrolled discretion of a basically uninstructed jury.” 446 U. S.; at 429.
The concluding sections of the trial judge’s opinion read as follows:
“CONCLUSION OF THE COURT
“THERE ARE SUFFICIENT AND GREAT AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH EXIST TO JUSTIFY THE SENTENCE OF DEATH AS TO THE DEFENDANT ELWOOD CLARK BARCLAY.
“AUTHORITY FOR SENTENCE
“That under Florida Law the Judge sentences a defendant, convicted of Murder in the First Degree, either to death or life imprisonment. This is an awesome burden to be placed upon the Judge — but in the landmark Florida case of State v. Dixon, 283 So. 2d 1, the Florida Supreme Court said that when such discretion can ‘be shown to be reasonable and controlled, rather than capricious and discriminatory,’ then it meets the test of Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238.
“COMMENTS OF JUDGE
“My twenty-eight years of legal experience have been almost exclusively in the field of Criminal Law. I have been a defense attorney in criminal cases, an Advisor to the Public Defender’s Office, a prosecutor for eight and one-half years and a Criminal Court and Circuit Court Judge — Felony Division — for almost ten years. During these twenty-eight years I have defended, prosecuted and held trial in almost every type of serious crime.
“Because of this extensive experience, I believe I have come to know and understand when, or when not, a crime is heinous, atrocious and cruel and deserving of the maximum possible sentence.
“My experience with the sordid, tragic and violent side of life has not been confined to the Courtroom. I, like so many American Combat Infantry Soldiers, walked the battlefields of Europe and saw the thousands of dead American and German soldiers and I witnessed the concentration camps where innocent civilians and children were murdered in a war of racial and religious extermination.
“To attempt to initate such a race war in this country is too horrible to contemplate for both our black and white citizens. Such an attempt must be dealt with by just and swift legal process and when justified by a Jury verdict of guilty — then to terminate and remove permanently from society those who would choose to initiate this diabolical course.
“HAD THE DEFENDANT BEEN EXPOSED TO THE CARNAGE OF THE BATTLEFIELDS AND THE HORRORS OF THE CONCENTRATION CAMPS INSTEAD OF MOVIES, TELEVISION PROGRAMS AND REVOLUTIONARY TRACTS GLORIFYING VIOLENCE AND RACIAL STRIFE — THEN PERHAPS HIS THOUGHTS AND ACTIONS WOULD HAVE TAKEN A LESS VIOLENT COURSE.
“Having set forth my personal experiences above, it is understandable that I am not easily shocked or moved by tragedy — but this present murder and call for racial war is especially shocking and meets every definition of heinous, atrocious and cruel. The perpetrator thereby forfeits further right to life — for certainly his life is no more sacred than that of the innocent eighteen year old victim, Stephen Anthony Orlando.” App. 135-139..
The trial judge discussed this point in the course of finding the “great risk of death to many persons,” “disrupt or hinder the lawful exercise of any governmental function or the enforcement of the laws,” and “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel” statutory aggravating circumstances.
Barclay does not, and could not reasonably, contend that the United States Constitution forbids Florida to make the defendant’s criminal record an aggravating circumstance. Thus, this case is distinguishable from Zant v. Stephens, 462 U. S. 862 (1983), where one of the three aggravating circumstances found in Georgia state court was found to be invalid under the Federal Constitution. Of course, a ‘“mere error of state law’ is not a denial of due process.” Engle v. Isaac, 456 U. S. 107, 121, n. 21 (1982), quoting Gryger v. Burke, 334 U. S. 728, 731 (1948). Thus we need not apply the type of federal harmless-error analysis that was necessary in Zant, supra, at 884-889.
Barclay does not contend that the Florida Supreme Court erred in applying the “law of the case” doctrine to this case. His claim seems to be, rather, that the errors in this case were so egregious and the flaws in the Florida statute are so fundamental that his sentence cannot constitutionally be permitted to stand. The Florida Supreme Court did not address Barclay’s arguments in precisely the terms he now uses. But, so far as we can tell from the record before us, Barclay did not make his arguments in the same terms on his first appeal. We know from the Florida Supreme Court’s opinion in the second appeal that it regarded these questions as having been decided in its first opinion. See supra, at 946. It appears, contrary to Justice Marshall’s assertion, post, at 989, that any fault, if fault there be, for failure to elaborate more fully on the relationship of this case to other Florida cases may well lie at the door of petitioner, and not the Supreme Court of Florida.
We have, in some similar circumstances, certified a question to the State Supreme Court in order to ascertain as precisely as possible the state-law basis for a sentence. See Zant v. Stephens, 456 U. S. 411, 416-417 (1982). But that procedure would be inappropriate here. Unlike Zant, which was a habeas case that originated in the federal court system, this case has already been twice reviewed by the Supreme Court of Florida. On petitioner’s second appeal the Supreme Court of Florida declined to address the questions he presents to this Court. Under these circumstances, certification to the Supreme Court of Florida would be little more than a pointed suggestion that it retreat from its “law of the case” position. While we may reverse or modify a state-court judgment which we find erroneously disposes of a federal question, we will not certify a question in these circumstances.
In fact, even before this Court decided Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U. S. 586 (1978) (evidence at sentencing phase cannot be limited to statutory mitigating circumstances), the Florida Supreme Court had construed this statute to permit consideration of any mitigating circumstances. See Songer v. State, 365 So. 2d 696, 700 (Fla. 1978) (citing cases). The opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ. explicitly recognized that § 921.141(5) does not include language limiting mitigating circumstances to those listed in the statute, but § 921.141(6) provides that “aggravating factors shall be limited to” the statutory aggravating circumstances. 428 U. S., at 250, n. 8. It is not clear from the opinion itself why the opinion inserted the word “statutory” in brackets when quoting § 921.141(b)(3).
The language of the statute, which provides that the sentencer must determine whether “sufficient aggravating circumstances exist,” §921.141(3)(a), indicates that any single statutory aggravating circumstance may not be adequate to meet this standard if, in the circumstances of a particular case, it is not sufficiently weighty to justify the death penalty. We have not found a Florida case in which a defendant claimed that a single aggravating circumstance was not “sufficient” within the meaning of §921.141(3)(a).
The statute was amended in 1979, but the parties agree that the amended statute was not applied to Barclay.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petitioner, James Brookhart, while serving the first of three consecutive sentences of from one to 20 years imposed by an Ohio Court of Common Pleas upon convictions of forgery and uttering forged instruments, brought this action for habeas corpus in the Supreme Court of Ohio. There is no question raised about that court’s jurisdiction. Petitioner charged and contends here that all his convictions are constitutionally invalid because obtained in a trial that denied him his federally guaranteed constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him (a) by permitting the State to introduce against him an out-of-court alleged confession of a co-defendant, Mitchell, and (b) by denying him the right to cross-examine any of the State’s witnesses who testified against him. Master Commissioners appointed by the State Supreme Court recommended that habeas corpus be denied. They found that “petitioner although he did not plead guilty agreed that all the state had to prove was a prima facie case, that he would not contest it and that there would be no cross-examination of witnesses.” This finding was not based on oral testimony but was based exclusively on an examination of the transcript of the proceedings in the trial court in which petitioner was convicted. The State Supreme Court accepted its Commissioners’ view of waiver, stating that the transcript of the trial showed that:
“In open court, while represented by counsel, petitioner agreed that, although he would not plead guilty, he would not contest the state’s case or cross-examine its witnesses but would require only that the state prove each of the essential elements of the crime.” 2 Ohio St. 2d 36, 40, 205 N. E. 2d 911, 914.
Upon this basis the State Supreme Court rejected petitioner’s constitutional contentions and ordered him remanded to custody. 2 Ohio St. 2d 36, 205 N. E. 2d 911. We granted certiorari to determine whether Ohio denied petitioner’s constitutional right to be confronted with and to cross-examine the witnesses against him. 382 U. S. 810.
In this Court respondent admits that:
“[I]f there was here a denial of cross-examination without waiver, it would be constitutional error of the first magnitude and no amount of showing of want of prejudice would cure it.”
This concession is properly made. The Sixth Amendment provides that: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him . . . .” And in Pointer v. Texas, 380 U. S. 400, 406, we held that the confrontation guarantee of the Sixth Amendment including the right of cross-examination “is ‘to be enforced against the States under the Fourteenth Amendment according to the same standards that protect those personal rights against federal encroachment.’ Malloy v. Hogan, supra, 378 U. S., at 10.” See also Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U. S. 415. It follows that unless petitioner did actually waive his right to be confronted with and to cross-examine these witnesses, his federally guaranteed constitutional rights have been denied in two ways. In the first place he was denied the right to cross-examine at all any witnesses who testified against him. In the second place there was introduced as evidence against him an alleged confession, made out of court by one of his co-defendants, Mitchell, who did not testify in court, and petitioner was therefore denied any opportunity whatever to confront and cross-examine the witness who made this very damaging statement. We therefore pass on to the question of waiver.
The question of a waiver of a federally guaranteed constitutional right is, of course, a federal question controlled by federal law. There is a presumption against the waiver of constitutional rights, see, e. g., Glasser v. United States, 315 U. S. 60, 70-71, and for a waiver to be effective it must be clearly established that there was “an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.” Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, 464.
In deciding the federal question of waiver raised here we must, of course, look to the facts which allegedly support the waiver. Upon an examination of the facts shown in this record, we are completely unable to agree with the Supreme Court of Ohio that the petitioner intelligently and knowingly waived his right to cross-examine the witnesses whose testimony was used to convict him. The trial record shows the following facts: Petitioner was arraigned January 29, 1962, without a lawyer, and pleaded not guilty to all charges against him. Two days later the court appointed counsel to represent him. Not able to make bond, he remained in jail until March 23, 1962, at which time he was brought before the judge for trial. There petitioner’s appointed counsel told the judge that his client had signed waivers of trial by jury and wanted to be tried by the court. The judge in order to verify the waivers showed petitioner the two written waivers of trial by jury bearing his signature and asked him if the signature was his. Petitioner said it was. The following colloquy among the judge, petitioner, and his counsel then took place in open court:
“Mr. Ergazos [petitioner’s lawyer]: That[’]s correct, Your Honor.
“The Court: Anything further?
“Mr. Kandel: Nothing further.
“Mr. Ergazos: The only thing is, Your Honor, this matter is before the court on a prima facie case.
“The Court: There being no . . . going to be no cross-examination of the witnesses, so the court will know and the State can’t be taken by surprise, the court doesn’t want to be fooled and have your client change his mind half way through the trial and really contest it, the State has a contest, we want to know in fairness to them so they can put on complete proof.
“Mr. Ergazos: I might say this, Your Honor, if there is any testimony adduced here this morning which leaves any question as to this defendant in connection with this crime I would like to reserve the right to cross-examine at that time.
“The Court: That is raising another . . . that is putting the State on the spot and the court on the spot, I won’t find him guilty if the evidence is substantial.
“Mr. Ergazos: We have a jury question in the court, undoubtedly there will be . . .
“The Court : Ordinarily in a prima facie case . . . the prima facie case is where the defendant, not technically or legally, in effect admits his guilt and wants the State to prove it.
“Mr. Ergazos: That is correct.
“The Court: And the court knowing that and the Prosecutor knowing that, instead of having a half a dozen witness on one point they only have one because they understand there will be no contest.
“A [Brookhart] I would like to point out in no way am I pleading guilty to this charge.
“The Court: If you want to stand trial we will give you a jury trial.
“A I have been incarcerated now for the last eighteen months in the county jail.
“The Court: You don’t get credit for that.
“A For over two months my nerves have been . . . I couldn’t stand it out there any longer, I would like to be tried by this court.
“The Court: Make up your mind whether you require a prima facie case or a complete trial of it.
“Mr. Ergazos: Prima facie, Your Honor, is all we are interested in.
“The Court: All right.” (Emphasis supplied.)
From the foregoing it seems clear that petitioner’s counsel agreed to a prima facie trial. By agreeing to this truncated kind of trial — if trial it could be called— we can assume that the lawyer knowingly agreed that the State need make only a prima facie showing of guilt and that he would neither offer evidence on petitioner’s behalf nor cross-examine any of the State’s witnesses. The record shows, however, that petitioner himself did not intelligently and knowingly agree to be tried in a proceeding which was the equivalent of a guilty plea and in which he would not have the right to be confronted with and cross-examine the witnesses against him. His desire not to agree to such a trial is shown by the fact that immediately after the judge accurately stated that in a prima facie case the defendant “in effect admits his guilt,” Brookhart personally interjected his statement that “I would like to point out in no way am I pleading guilty to this charge.” Although he expressly waived his right to a jury trial, he never, at any time, either explicitly or implicitly, pleaded guilty. His emphatic statement to the judge that “in no way am I pleading guilty” negatives any purpose on his part to agree to have his case tried on the basis of the State’s proving a prima facie case which both the trial court and the State Supreme Court held was the practical equivalent of a plea of guilty. Our question therefore narrows down to whether counsel has power to enter a plea which is inconsistent with his client’s expressed desire and thereby waive his client’s constitutional right to plead not guilty and have a trial in which he can confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him. We hold that the constitutional rights of a defendant cannot be waived by his counsel under such circumstances. It is true, as stated in Henry v. Mississippi, 379 U. S. 443, 451, that counsel may, under some conditions, where the circumstances are not “exceptional, preclude the accused from asserting constitutional claims . . . .” Nothing in Henry, however, can possibly support a contention that counsel for defendant can override his client’s desire expressed in open court to plead not guilty and enter in the name of his client another plea — whatever the label — which would shut off the defendant’s constitutional right - to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him which he would have an opportunity to do under a plea of not guilty. Since we hold that petitioner neither personally waived his right nor acquiesced in his lawyer’s attempted waiver, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio must be and is reversed and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Separate opinion of
Mr. Justice Harlan.
I do not find the issue in this case as straightforward as does the Court. If the record were susceptible only of the reading given it by the Court, I would concur in the judgment. However, for me this case presents problems of two sorts.
First, the precise nature of the “rights” that were allegedly “waived” is not wholly clear. One view, adopted by the Court, is that petitioner’s lawyer in effect entered a conditional plea of guilty for the defendant. Another interpretation, which is certainly arguable, would find the agreement between petitioner’s counsel and the trial court to involve no more than a matter of trial procedure. I believe a lawyer may properly make a tactical determination of how to run a trial even in the face of his client’s incomprehension or even explicit disapproval. The decision, for example, whether or not to cross-examine a specific witness is, I think, very clearly one for counsel alone. Although it can be contended that the waiver here was nothing more than a tactical choice of this nature, I believe for federal constitutional purposes the procedure agreed to in this instance involved so significant a surrender of the rights normally incident to a trial that it amounted almost to a plea of guilty or nolo con-tendere. And I do not believe that under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment such a plea may be entered by counsel over his client’s protest.
Second, given the need for petitioner’s approval of the entry of such a plea, the further question arises whether petitioner did in fact agree to be tried in a “prima facie” trial without the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. The Supreme Court of Ohio, on the basis of an examination of the record, found that petitioner “agreed that all the state had to prove was a prima facie case, that he would not contest it, and that there would be no cross-examination of witnesses.” Brookhart v. Haskins, 2 Ohio St. 2d 36, 38, 205 N. E. 2d 911, 913. This Court, after an independent examination of the relevant portion of the same record, reprinted, ante, pp. 5-6, finds that petitioner “did not intelligently and knowingly agree to be tried in a proceeding which was the equivalent of a guilty plea . . . .” Ante, p. 7.
The decisive fact is of course the state of petitioner’s mind — his understanding and his intention — when his counsel stated to the trial court: “Prima facie, Your Honor, is all we are interested in.” My reading of the record leaves me in substantial doubt as to what petitioner’s actual understanding was at the end of the pertinent courtroom colloquy, a doubt that is enhanced by the general unfamiliarity that seems to exist with this Ohio “prima facie” practice. I cannot see how the question can be satisfactorily resolved solely on the existing record. I would therefore vacate this judgment and remand the case for a hearing under appropriate state procedures to determine whether petitioner did in fact knowingly and freely choose to have his guilt determined in this type of trial. Failing the availability of such proceedings in the state courts, the avenue of federal habeas corpus would then be open to petitioner for determination of that issue.
Petitioner was also convicted in the same trial of breaking and entering and grand larceny. His sentences on these convictions were made to run concurrently with his sentences for forgery and uttering forged instruments.
Mitchell pleaded guilty after being indicted with petitioner, was sentenced to an Ohio state reformatory, and although in the reformatory at the time of petitioner’s trial, was not called to testify in person.
The petition also charged that Brookhart had not been given adequate notice of the charges upon which he was tried because the indictment charging him with forgery and uttering forged instruments was amended at trial. And in this Court petitioner attacks his convictions on several other constitutional grounds. We find it unnecessary to decide any of the additional contentions set out in this note.
When constitutional rights turn on the resolution of a factual dispute we are duty bound to make an independent examination of the evidence in the record. See, e. g., Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U. S. 229, 235; Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U. S. 199, 205, n. 5.
Compare Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U. S. 723, 726.
The Supreme Court of Ohio characterized the procedure as “unusual,” 2 Ohio St. 2d, at 39, 205 N. E. 2d, at 914. At oral argument, the Assistant Attorney General of Ohio noted that he had been unaware of such a procedure, and that the practice could not be found in any statute or rules of court. The State explains the procedure as follows: “There is no statutory plea of nolo contendere in Ohio in felony cases, therefore, when one is charged with a crime »which he knows that he cannot successfully defend, but a plea of guilty will subject him to a penalty in a civil suit arising out of the same factual situation, he is without recourse to a plea of nolo contendere as is permitted in federal courts and certain other state courts. To circumvent this difficulty some Ohio courts have allowed, as was done here, the accused to enter a plea of not guilty and by arrangement require the prosecution to prove only a prima facie case.” Brief, at 44-45, note 41.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The judgments of the Supreme Court of Florida in these twelve consolidated cases must be reversed. They all concern the power of the courts of Florida to enjoin organizational picketing at twelve Florida resort hotels. After a series of decisions in regard to these and related cases, the Florida Supreme Court, in identical per curiam opinions, affirmed the issuance of permanent injunctions against the picketing.
The Florida courts were without jurisdiction to enjoin this organizational picketing, whether it was activity protected by § 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 157, Hill v. Florida ex rel. Watson, 325 U. S. 538, or prohibited by § 8 (b) (4) of the Act, 29 U. S. C. § 158 (b)(4), Garner v. Teamsters Union, 346 U. S. 485. See Weber v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 348 U. S. 468, at 481. This follows even though the National Labor Relations Board refused to take jurisdiction, Amalgamated Meat Cutters v. Fairlawn Meats, 353 U. S. 20. The record does not disclose violence sufficient to give the State jurisdiction under United Automobile Workers v. Wisconsin Board, 351 U. S. 266. In none of the twelve cases did the Florida trial courts make any finding of violence, and in some an affirmative finding of no violence was made.
Since it was stipulated below that a witness would testify that interstate commerce was involved in the Florida resort hotel industry, and since the parties asked that “Final Decree be entered by the Chancellor upon the record as now made in the light of this Stipulation,” we find it unnecessary to remand for consideration of that question. See Hotel Employees Local No. 255 v. Leedom, 358 U. S. 99. Other questions raised by respondents are either without merit or irrelevant to this disposition of the cases.
Reversed.
Sax Enterprises, Inc., v. Hotel Employees Union, 80 So. 2d 602; Boca Raton Club, Inc., v. Hotel Employees Union, 83 So. 2d 11; and Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Hotel Employees Union, 92 So. 2d 415.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | J | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mu. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The case before us presents the question whether, and to what extent, the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 61 Stat. 136, 29 U. S. C. § 141 et seq. (1964 ed.), bars the maintenance of a civil action for libel instituted under state law by an official of an employer subject to the Act, seeking damages for defamatory statements published during a union organizing campaign by the union and its officers. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the National Labor Relations Board had exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter. It held that such conduct “would arguably constitute an unfair labor practice under Section 8 (b)” of the Act and that San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U. S. 236 (1959), compelled a dismissal on pre-emption grounds. The Court of Appeals affirmed, 337 F. 2d 68, assuming without deciding that the statements in question were “false, malicious, clearly libelous and damaging to plaintiff Linn, albeit they were relevant to the union’s campaign.” At p. 69. We granted certiorari, 381 U. S. 923. We conclude that where either party to a labor dispute circulates false and defamatory statements during a union organizing campaign, the court does have jurisdiction to apply state remedies if the complainant pleads and proves that the statements were made with malice and injured him. The judgment is, therefore, reversed.
I.
Petitioner Linn, an assistant general manager of Pinkerton’s National Detective Agency, Inc., filed this suit against the respondent union, two of its officers and a Pinkerton employee, Leo J. Doyle. The complaint alleged that, during a campaign to organize Pinkerton’s employees in Detroit, the respondents had circulated among the employees leaflets which stated inter alia:
“(7) Now we find out that Pinkerton’s has had a large volume of work in Saginaw they have had it for years.
“United Plant Guard Workers now has evidence
“A. That Pinkerton has 10 jobs in Saginaw, Michigan.
“B. Employing 52 men.
“C. Some of these jobs are 10 yrs. old!
“(8) Make you feel kind sick & foolish.
“(9) The men in Saginaw were deprived of their right to vote in three N. L. R. B. elections. Their names were not summitted [sic]. These guards were voted into the Union in 1959! These Pinkerton guards were robbed of pay increases. The Pinkerton manegers [sic] were lying to us — all the time the contract was in effect. No doubt the Saginaw men will file criminal charges. Somebody may go to Jail!”
The complaint further alleged that Linn was one of the managers referred to in the leaflet, and that the statements in the leaflet were “wholly false, defamatory and untrue” as respondents well knew. It did not allege any actual or special damage but prayed for the recovery of $1,000,000 on the ground that the accusations were libelous per se. Federal jurisdiction was based on diversity of citizenship.
All respondents, save Doyle, moved to dismiss, asserting that the subject matter was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Board. The record indicates that prior to the institution of this action Pinkerton had filed unfair labor practice charges with the Regional Director of the Board, alleging that the distribution of the leaflets, as well as other written material, had restrained and coerced Pinkerton’s employees in the exercise of their § 7 rights, in violation of § 8 (b)(1)(A) of the Act. The Regional Director refused to issue a complaint. Finding that the leaflets were circulated by Doyle, who was “not an officer or member of the charged union, nor was there any evidence that he was acting as an agent of such union,” he concluded that the union was not responsible for the distribution of the leaflets and that the charge was, therefore, “wholly without basis.” This ruling was sustained by the General Counsel of the Board some two months after this suit was filed.
In an unpublished opinion the District Judge dismissed the complaint holding, as we have already noted, that even if the union were responsible for distributing the material the case was controlled by Garmon, supra. The Court of Appeals affirmed, limiting its holding “to a suit for libelous statements growing out of and relevant to a union’s campaign to organize the employees of an employer subject to the National Labor Relations Act.” At 72.
II.
The question before us has been a recurring one in both state and federal tribunals, involving the extent to which the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, supersedes state law with respect to libels published during labor disputes. Its resolution entails accommodation of the federal interest in uniform regulation of labor relations with the traditional concern and responsibility of the State to protect its citizens against defamatory attacks. The problem is aggravated by the fact that the law in many States presumes damages from the publication of certain statements characterized as actionable per se. Labor disputes are ordinarily heated affairs; the language that is commonplace there might well.be deemed actionable per se in some state jurisdictions. Indeed, representation campaigns are frequently characterized by bitter and extreme charges, countercharges, unfounded rumors, vituperations, personal accusations, misrepresentations and distortions. Both labor and management often speak bluntly and recklessly, embellishing their respective positions with imprecatory language. Cafeteria Union v. Angelos, 320 U. S. 293, 295 (1943). It is therefore necessary to determine whether libel actions in such circumstances might interfere with the national labor policy.
Our task is rendered more difficult by the failure of the Congress to furnish precise guidance in either the language of the Act or its legislative history. As Mr. Justice Jackson said for a unanimous Court in Garner v. Teamsters Union, 346 U. S. 485, 488 (1953): “The . . . Act . . . leaves much to the states, though Congress has refrained from telling us how much. We must spell out from conflicting indications of congressional will the area in which state action is still permissible.”
The Court has dealt with specific pre-emption problems arising under the National Labor Relations Act on many occasions, going back as far as Allen-Bradley Local v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board, 315 U. S. 740 (1942). However, in framing the pre-emption question before us we need look primarily to San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U. S. 236 (1959). There in most meticulous language this Court spelled out the “extent to which the variegated laws of the several States are displaced by a single, uniform, national rule . . . .” At 241. The Court emphasized that it was for the Board and the Congress to define the “precise and closely limited demarcations that can be adequately fashioned only by legislation and administration,” while “[o]ur task is confined to dealing with classes of situations.” At 242. In this respect, the Court concluded that the States need not yield jurisdiction “where the activity regulated was a merely peripheral concern of the Labor Management Relations Act. . . [o]r where the regulated conduct touched interests so deeply rooted in local feeling and responsibility that, in the absence of compelling congressional direction, we could not infer that Congress had deprived the States of the power to act.” At 243-244. In short, as we said in Plumbers’ Union v. Borden, 373 U. S. 690, 693-694 (1963):
“[I]n the absence of an overriding state interest such as that involved in the maintenance of domestic peace, state courts must defer to the exclusive competence of the National Labor Relations Board in cases in which the activity that is the subject matter of the litigation is arguably subject to the protections of § 7 or the prohibitions of § 8 of the National Labor Relations Act. This relinquishment of state jurisdiction ... is essential ‘if the danger of state interference with national policy is to be averted/ . . . and is as necessary in a suit for damages as in a suit seeking equitable relief. Thus the first inquiry, in any case in which a claim of federal preemption is raised, must be whether the conduct called into question may reasonably be asserted to be subject to Labor Board cognizance.”
We note that the Board has given frequent consideration to the type of statements circulated during labor controversies, and that it has allowed wide latitude to the competing parties. It is clear that the Board does not “police or censor propaganda used in the elections it conducts, but rather leaves to the' good sense of the voters the appraisal of such matters, and to opposing parties the task of correcting inaccurate and untruthful statements.” Stewart-Warner Corp., 102 N. L. R. B. 1153, 1158 (1953). It will set aside an election only where a material fact has been misrepresented in the representation campaign; opportunity for reply has been lacking; and the misrepresentation has had an impact on the free choice of the employees participating in the election. Hollywood Ceramics Co., 140 N. L. R. B. 221, 223-224 (1962); F. H. Snow Canning Co., 119 N. L. R. B. 714, 717-718 (1957). Likewise, in a number of cases, the Board has concluded that epithets such as “scab,” “unfair,” and “liar” are com-
monplace in these struggles and not so indefensible as to remove them from the protection of § 7, even though the statements are erroneous and defame one of the parties to the dispute. Yet the Board indicated that its decisions would have been different had the statements been uttered with actual malice, “a deliberate intention to falsify” or “a malevolent desire to injure.” E. g., Bettcher Mjg. Corp., 76 N. L. R. B. 526 (1948); Atlantic Towing Co., 75 N. L. R. B. 1169, 1170-1173 (1948). In sum, although the Board tolerates intemperate, abusive and inaccurate statements made by the union during attempts to organize employees, it does not interpret the Act as giving either party license to injure the other intentionally by circulating defamatory or insulting material known to be false. See Maryland Drydock Co. v. Labor Board, 183 F. 2d 538 (C. A. 4th Cir. 1950). In such case the one issuing such material forfeits his protection under the Act. Walls Manufacturing Co., 137 N. L. R. B. 1317, 1319 (1962).
In the light of these considerations it appears that the exercise of state jurisdiction here would be a “merely peripheral concern of the Labor Management Relations Act,” provided it is limited to redressing libel issued with knowledge of its falsity, or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false. Moreover, we believe that “an overriding state interest” in protecting its residents from malicious libels should be recognized in these circumstances. This conclusion is buttressed by our holding in United Construction Workers v. Laburnum Construction Corp., 347 U. S. 656 (1954), where Mr. Justice Burton writing for the Court held:
“To the extent . . . that Congress has not prescribed procedure for dealing with the consequences of tortious conduct already committed, there is no ground for concluding that existing criminal penalties or liabilities for tortious conduct have been eliminated. The care we took in the Garner case to demonstrate the existing conflict between state and federal administrative remedies in that case was, itself, a recognition that if no conflict had existed, the state procedure would have survived.” At 665.
In United Automobile Workers v. Russell, 356 U. S. 634 (1958), we again upheld state jurisdiction to entertain a compensatory and punitive damage action by an employee for malicious interference with his lawful occupation. In each of these cases the “type of conduct” involved, i. e., “intimidation and threats of violence,” affected such compelling state interests as to permit the exercise of state jurisdiction. Garmon, supra, at 248. We similarly conclude that a State’s concern with redressing malicious libel is “so deeply rooted in local feeling and responsibility” that it fits within the exception specifically carved out by Garmon.
We acknowledge that the enactment of § 8 (c) manifests a congressional intent to encourage free debate on issues dividing labor and management. And, as we stated in another context, cases involving speech are to be considered “against the background of a profound . . . commitment to the principle that debate . . . should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 270 (1964). Such considerations likewise weigh heavily here; the most repulsive speech enjoys immunity provided it falls short of a deliberate or reckless untruth. But it must be emphasized that malicious libel enjoys no constitutional protection in .any context. After all, the labor movement has grown up and must assume ordinary responsibilities. The malicious utterance of defamatory statements in any form cannot be condoned, and unions should adopt procedures calculated to prevent such abuses.
III.
Nor should the fact that defamation arises during a labor dispute give the Board exclusive jurisdiction to remedy its consequences. The malicious publication of libelous statements does not in and of itself constitute an unfair labor practice. While the Board might find that an employer or union violated § 8 by deliberately making false statements, or that the issuance of malicious statements during an organizing campaign had such a profound effect on the election as to require that it be set aside, it looks only to the coercive or misleading nature of the statements rather than their defamatory quality. The injury that the statement might cause to an individual’s reputation — whether he be an employer or union official — has no relevance to the Board’s function. Cf. Amalgamated Utility Workers v. Consolidated Edison Co., 309 U. S. 261 (1940). The Board can award no damages, impose no penalty, or give any other relief to the defamed individual.
On the contrary, state remedies have been designed to compensate the victim and enable him to vindicate his reputation. The Board’s lack of concern with the “personal” injury caused by malicious libel, together with its inability to provide redress to the maligned party, vitiates the ordinary arguments for pre-emption. As stressed by The Chief Justice in his dissenting opinion in Russell, supra:
“The unprovoked, infliction of personal injuries during a period of labor unrest is neither to be expected nor to be justified, but economic loss inevitably attends work stoppages. Furthermore, damages for personal injuries may be assessed without regard to the merits of the labor controversy . . . .” At 649.
Judicial condemnation of the alleged attack on Linn’s character would reflect no judgment upon the objectives of the union. It would not interfere with the Board’s jurisdiction over the merits of the labor controversy.
But it has been insisted that not only would the threat of state libel suits dampen the ardor of labor debate and truncate the free discussion envisioned by the Act, but that such suits might be used as weapons of economic coercion. Moreover, in view of the propensity of juries to award excessive damages for defamation, the availability of libel actions may pose a threat to the stability of labor unions and smaller employers. In order that the recognition of legitimate state interests does not interfere with effective administration of national labor policy the possibility of such consequences must be minimized. We therefore limit the availability of state remedies for libel to those instances in which the complainant can show that the defamatory statements were circulated with malice and caused him damage.
The standards enunciated in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254 (1964), are adopted by analogy, rather than under constitutional compulsion. We apply the malice test to effectuate the statutory design with respect to pre-emption. Construing the Act to permit recovery of damages in a state cause of action only for defamatory statements published with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard of whether they were true or false guards against abuse of libel actions and unwarranted intrusion upon free discussion envisioned by the Act.
As we have pointed out, certain language characteristic of labor disputes may be held actionable per se in some state courts. These categories of libel have developed without specific reference to labor controversies. However, even in ^those jurisdictions, the amount of damages which may be recovered depends upon evidence as to the severity of the resulting harm. This is a salutary principle. We therefore hold that a complainant may not recover except upon proof of such harm, which may include general injury to reputation, consequent mental suffering, alienation of associates, specific items of pecuniary loss, or whatever form of harm would be recognized by state tort law. The fact that courts are generally not in close contact with the pressures of labor disputes makes it especially necessary that this rule be followed. If the amount of damages awarded is excessive, it is the duty of the trial judge to require a remittitur or a new trial. Likewise, the defamed party must establish that he has suffered some sort of compensable harm as a prerequisite to the recovery of additional punitive damages.
Since the complaint here does not make the specific allegations that we find necessary in such actions, leave should be given Linn on remand to amend his complaint, if he so desires, to meet these requirements. In the event of a new trial he, of course, bears the burden of proof of such allegations.
f-H
Finally, it has been argued that permitting state action here would impinge upon national labor policy because the availability of a judicial remedy for malicious libel would cause employers and unions to spurn appropriate administrative sanctions for contemporaneous violations of the Act. We disagree. When the Board and state law frown upon the publication of malicious libel, albeit for different reasons, it may be expected that the injured party will request both administrative and judicial relief. The Board would not be ignored since its sanctions alone can adjust the equilibrium disturbed by an unfair labor practice. If a malicious libel contributed to union victory in a closely fought election, few employers would be satisfied with simply damages for “personal” injury caused by the defamation. An unsuccessful union would also seek to set the election results aside as the fruits of an employer’s malicious libel. And a union may be expected to request similar relief for defamatory statements which contribute to the victory of a competing union. Nor would the courts and the Board act at cross purposes since, as we have seen, their policies would not be inconsistent.
As was said in Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 64, 75: “[T]he use of the known lie as a tool is at once at odds with the premises of democratic government and with the orderly manner in which economic, social, or political change is to be effected.” We believe that under the rules laid down here it can be appropriately redressed without curtailment of state libel remedies beyond the actual needs of national labor policy. However, if experience shows that a greater curtailment, even a total one, should be necessary to prevent impairment of that policy, the Court will be free to reconsider today’s holding. We deal' here not with a constitutional issue but solely with the degree to which state remedies have been pre-empted by the Act.
Reversed and remanded.
E. g., Brantley v. Devereaux, 237 F. Supp. 156 (D. C. E. D. S. C. 1965); Meyer v. Joint Council 53, Int’l Bro. of Teamsters, 416 Pa. 401, 206 A. 2d 382, petition for cert. dismissed under Rule 60, 382 U. S. 897 (1965). Blum v. International Assn. of Machinists, 42 N. J. 389, 201 A. 2d 46 (1964).
We adopt this terminology to avoid confusion with the concept of libel per se, applied in many States simply to designate words whose defamatory nature appears without consideration of extrinsic facts. Although Linn’s complaint alleges that the leaflets were "libelous per se,” his failure to specify the manner in which their publication harmed him indicates that he meant to rely on the presumption of damages. Under our present holding Linn must show that he was injured by the circulation of the statements; this necessarily includes proof that the words had a defamatory meaning.
The Congress has declared in the Act that employees have the right to self-organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activity for mutual aid and protection. § 7. In § 8 (a) Congress has made it an unfair labor practice for an employer to restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of § 7 rights. Likewise, § 8 (b) protects these rights against interference by a labor organization or its agents. And § 8 (c) provides that the expression of any views or opinions “shall not constitute or be evidence of an unfair labor practice ... if such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit.” In addition, §9 (c)(1) authorizes the Board, under certain conditions, to conduct representation elections and certify the results thereof. Finally, § 10 grants the Board exclusive power to enforce the prohibitions of the Act.
See Bok, The Regulation of Campaign Tactics in Representation Elections Under the National Labor Relations Act, 78 Harv. L. Rev. 38, 66 (1964).
The wording of the statute indicates, however, that § 8 (c) was not designed to serve this interest by immunizing all statements made in the course of a labor controversy. Rather, § 8 (c) provides that the “expressing of any views, argument, or opinion . . . shall not constitute or be evidence of an unfair labor practice ... if such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit.” 61 Stat. 142 (1947), 29 U. S. C. § 158 (c) (1964 ed.). It is more likely that Congress adopted this section for a narrower purpose, i. e., to prevent the Board from attributing anti-union motive to an employer on the basis of his past statements. See H. It. Rep. No. 510, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 45 (1947). Comparison with the express protection given union members to criticize the management of their unions and the conduct of their officers, 73 Stat. 523 (1959), 29 U. S. C. §411 (a)(2) (1964 ed.), strengthens this interpretation of congressional intent.
The fact that the Board has no authority to grant effective relief aggravates the State’s concern since the refusal to redress an otherwise actionable wrong creates disrespect for the law and encourages the victim to take matters into his own hands. The function of libel suits in preventing violence has long been recognized. Developments in the Law — Defamation, 69 Harv. L. Rev. 875, 933 (1956). But as to criminal libel suits see Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 64 (1964).
The Government, as amicus curiae, has urged us to go further. It would limit liability to “grave” defamations — those which accuse the defamed person of having engaged in criminal, homosexual, treasonable, or other infamous conduct. We cannot agree. This would impose artificial characterizations that would encroach too heavily upon state jurisdiction.
It should be noted that punitive damages were awarded m Laburnum and Russell. In both instances there was proof of compensatory injury resulting from the defendants’ violence.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | J | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner was convicted of rape in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and, as authorized by the District Code, the jury imposed a death sentence. The Court of Appeals affirmed, one judge dissenting. 98 U. S. App. D. C. 406, 236 F. 2d 701. Since an important question involving the interpretation of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure was involved in this capital case, we granted the petition for certiorari. 352 U. S. 877.
The rape occurred at six p. m. on April 7, 1954, in the basement of the apartment house inhabited by the victim. She had descended to the basement a few minutes previous to wash some laundry. Experiencing some difficulty in detaching a hose in the sink, she sought help from the janitor, who lived in a basement apartment with his wife, two grown sons, a younger son and the petitioner, his nineteen-year-old half-brother. Petitioner was alone in the apartment at the time. He detached the hose and returned to his quarters. Very shortly thereafter, a masked man, whose general features were identified to resemble those of petitioner and his two grown nephews, attacked the woman. She had heard no one descend the wooden steps that furnished the only means of entering the basement from above.
Petitioner and one of his grown nephews disappeared from the apartment house shortly after the crime was committed. The former was apprehended the following afternoon between two and two-thirty p. m. and was taken, along with his older nephews, also suspects, to police headquarters. At least four officers questioned him there in the presence of other officers for thirty to forty-five minutes, beginning the examination by telling him, according to his testimony, that his brother had said that he was the assailant. Petitioner strenuously denied his guilt. He spent the rest of the afternoon at headquarters, in the company of the other two suspects and his brother a good part of the time. About four p. m. the three suspects were asked to submit to “lie detector” tests, and they agreed. The officer in charge of the polygraph machine was not located for almost two hours, during which time the suspects received food and drink. The nephews were then examined first. Questioning of petitioner began just after eight p. m. Only he and the polygraph operator were present in' a small room, the door to which was closed.
Following almost an hour and one-half of steady interrogation, he “first stated that he could have done this crime, or that he might have done it. He finally stated that he was responsible . . . .” (Testimony of polygraph operator, R. 70.) Not until ten p. m., after petitioner had repeated his confession to other officers, did the police attempt to reach a United States Commissioner for the purpose of arraignment. Failing in this, they obtained petitioner's consent to examination by the deputy coroner, who noted no indicia of physical or psychological coercion. Petitioner was then confronted by the complaining witness and “[p]ractically every man in the Sex Squad,” and in response to questioning by three officers, he repeated the confession. Between eleven-thirty p. m. and twelve-thirty a. m. he dictated the confession to a typist. The next morning he was brought before a Commissioner. At the trial, which was delayed for a year because of doubt about petitioner’s capacity to understand the proceedings against him, the signed confession was introduced in evidence.
The case calls for the proper application of Rule 5 (a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, promulgated in 1946, 327 U. S. 821. That Rule provides:
“(a) Appearance before the Commissioner. An officer making an arrest under a warrant issued upon a complaint or any person making an arrest without a warrant shall take the arrested person without unnecessary delay before the nearest available commissioner or before any other nearby officer empowered to commit persons charged with offenses against the laws of the United States. When a person arrested without a warrant is brought before a commissioner or other officer, a complaint shall be filed forthwith.”
This provision has both statutory and judicial antecedents for guidance in applying it. The requirement that arraignment be “without unnecessary delay” is a compendious restatement, without substantive change, of several prior specific federal statutory provisions. (E. g., 20 Stat. 327, 341; 48 Stat. 1008; also 28 Stat. 416.) See Dession, The New Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure: I, 55 Yale L. J. 694, 707. Nearly all the States have similar enactments.
In McNabb v. United States, 318 U. S. 332, 343-344, we spelled out the important reasons of policy behind this body of legislation:
“The purpose of this impressively pervasive requirement of criminal procedure is plain. . . . The awful instruments of the criminal law cannot be entrusted to a single functionary. The complicated process of criminal justice is therefore divided into different parts, responsibility for which is separately vested in the various participants upon whom the criminal law relies for its vindication. Legislation such as this, requiring that the police must with reasonable promptness show legal cause for detaining arrested persons, constitutes an important safeguard — not only in assuring protection for the innocent but also in securing conviction of the guilty by methods that commend themselves to a progress sive and self-confident society. For this procedural requirement checks resort to those reprehensible practices known as the ‘third degree’ which, though universally rejected as indefensible, still find their way into use. It aims to avoid all the evil implications of secret interrogation of persons accused of crime.”
Since such unwarranted detention led to tempting utilization of intensive interrogation, easily gliding into the evils of “the third degree,” the Court held that police detention of defendants beyond the time when a committing magistrate was readily accessible constituted “willful disobedience of law.” In order adequately to enforce the congressional requirement of prompt arraignment, it was deemed necessary to render inadmissible incriminating statements elicited from defendants during a period of unlawful detention.
In Upshaw v. United States, 335 U. S. 410, which came here after the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure had been in operation, the Court made it clear that Rule 5 (a)’s standard of “without unnecessary delay” implied no relaxation of the McNabb doctrine.
The requirement of Rule 5 (a) is part of the procedure devised by Congress for safeguarding individual rights without hampering effective and intelligent law enforcement. Provisions related to Rule 5 (a) contemplate a procedure that allows arresting officers little more leeway than the interval between arrest and the ordinary administrative steps required to bring a suspect before the nearest available magistrate. Rule 4 (a) provides: “If it appears from the complaint that there is probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed and that the defendant has committed it, a warrant for the arrest of the defendant shall issue . . . .” Rule 4 (b) requires that the warrant “shall command that the defendant be arrested and brought before the nearest available commissioner.” And Rules 5 (b) and (c) reveal the function of the requirement of prompt arraignment:
“(b) Statement by the Commissioner. The commissioner shall inform the defendant of the complaint against him, of his right to retain counsel and of his right to have a preliminary examination. He shall also inform the defendant that he is not required to make a statement and that any statement made by him may be used against him. The commissioner shall allow the defendant reasonable time and opportunity to consult counsel and shall admit the defendant to bail as provided in these rules.
“(c) Preliminary Examination. The defendant shall not be called upon to plead. If the defendant waives preliminary examination, the commissioner shall forthwith hold him to answer in the district court. If the defendant does not waive examination, the commissioner shall hear the evidence within a reasonable time. The defendant may cross-examine witnesses against him and may introduce evidence in his own behalf. If from the evidence it appears to the commissioner that there is probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed and that the defendant has committed it, the commissioner shall forthwith hold him to answer in the district court; otherwise the commissioner shall discharge him. The commissioner shall admit the defendant to bail as provided in these rules.”
The scheme for initiating a federal prosecution is plainly defined. The police may not arrest upon mere suspicion but only on “probable cause.” The next step in the proceeding is to arraign the arrested person before a judicial officer as quickly as possible so that he may be advised of his rights and so that the issue of probable cause may be promptly determined. The arrested person may, of course, be “booked” by the police. But he is not to be taken to police headquarters in order to carry out a process of inquiry that lends itself, even if not so designed, to eliciting damaging statements to support the arrest and ultimately his guilt.
The duty enjoined upon arresting officers to arraign “without unnecessary delay” indicates that the command does not call for mechanical or automatic obedience. Circumstances may justify a brief delay between arrest and arraignment, as for instance, where the story volunteered by the accused is susceptible of quick verification through third parties. But the delay must not be of a nature to give opportunity for the extraction of a confession.
The circumstances of this case preclude a holding that arraignment was “without unnecessary delay.” Petitioner was arrested in the early afternoon and was detained at headquarters within the vicinity of numerous committing magistrates. Even though the police had ample evidence from other sources than the petitioner for regarding the petitioner as the chief suspect, they first questioned him for approximately a half hour. When this inquiry of a nineteen-year-old lad of limited intelligence produced no confession, the police asked him to submit to a “lie-detector” test. He was not told of his rights to counsel or to a preliminary examination before a magistrate, nor was he warned that he might keep silent and “that any statement made by him may be used against him.” After four hours of further detention at headquarters, during which arraignment could easily have been made in the same building in which the police headquarters were housed, petitioner was examined by the lie-detector operator for another hour and a half before his story began to waver. Not until he had confessed, when any judicial caution had lost its purpose, did the police arraign him.
We cannot sanction this extended delay, resulting in confession, without subordinating the general rule of prompt arraignment to the discretion of arresting officers in finding exceptional circumstances for its disregard. In every case where the police resort to interrogation of an arrested person and secure a confession, they may well claim, and quite sincerely, that they were merely trying to check on the information given by him. Against such a claim and the evil potentialities of the practice for which it is urged stands Rule 5 (a) as a barrier. Nor is there an escape from the constraint laid upon the police by that Rule in that two other suspects were involved for the same crime. Presumably, whomever the police arrest they must arrest on “probable cause.” It is not the function of the police to arrest, as it were, at large and to use an interrogating process at police headquarters in order to determine whom they should charge before a committing magistrate on “probable cause.”
Reversed and remanded.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Insofar as the judgment of the District Court decides federal questions, it is affirmed. Insofar as the judgment decides other questions, it is vacated and the cause is remanded for further consideration in light of the supervening decision of the Colorado Supreme Court in White v. Anderson, - Colo. -, 394 P. 2d 333 (1964).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice White
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion in which Mr. Justice Stewart joined.
This case involves the recurring issue of distinguishing between legislatively enacted and judicially imposed reappor-tionments of state legislative bodies.
I
In 1971 respondents, Negro and Mexican-American residents of Dallas, Tex., filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas against petitioners, the Mayor and members of the City Council of Dallas, the city’s legislative body, alleging that the at-large system of electing council members unconstitutionally diluted the vote of racial minorities. They sought a declaratory judgment to this effect and an injunction requiring the election of councilmen from single-member districts. The complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim, but the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit disagreed and remanded. Lipscomb v. Jonsson, 459 F. 2d 335 (1972).
On January 17, 1975, after certifying a plaintiff class consisting of all Negro citizens of the city of Dallas and following an evidentiary hearing, the District Court orally declared that the system of at-large elections to the Dallas City Council unconstitutionally diluted the voting strength of Negro citizens. The District Court then “afforded the city an opportunity as a legislative body for the City of Dallas to prepare a plan which would be constitutional.” App. 29.
On January 20, 1975, the City Council passed a resolution which stated that the Council intended to enact an ordinance which would provide for eight Council members to be elected from single-member districts and for the three remaining members, including the Mayor, to be elected at-large. This plan was submitted to the District Court on January 24, 1975. The court then conducted a remedy hearing “to determine the constitutionality of the new proposed plan by the City of Dallas.” Ibid. After an extensive hearing, the court announced in an oral opinion delivered on February 8, 1975, that the city’s plan met constitutional guidelines and was acceptable and that it would issue a written opinion in the near future. Two days later, the City Council formally enacted the promised ordinance, and on March 25, the court issued a memorandum opinion containing its findings of fact and conclusions of law and again sustaining the city plan as a valid legislative Act. 399 F. Supp. 782 (1975).
The Court of Appeals reversed. 551 F. 2d 1043 (1977). It held that the District Court erred by evaluating the city’s actions only under constitutional standards rather than also applying the teaching of East Carroll Parish School Bd. v. Marshall, 424 U. S. 636 (1976), that, absent exceptional circumstances, judicially imposed reapportionment plans should employ only single-member districts. It concluded that no considerations existed in this case which justified a departure from this preference and remanded with instructions that the District Court require the city to reapportion itself into an appropriate number of single-member districts. We granted certiorari, 434 U. S. 1008 (1978), and reverse on the grounds that the Court of Appeals misapprehended East Carroll Parish School Bd. and its predecessors.
II
The Court has repeatedly held that redistricting and reapportioning legislative bodies is a legislative task which the federal courts should make every effort not to pre-empt. Connor v. Finch, 431 U. S. 407, 414-415 (1977); Chapman v. Meier, 420 U. S. 1, 27 (1975); Gaffney v. Cummings, 412 U. S. 735, 749 (1973); Burns v. Richardson, 384 U. S. 73, 84-85 (1966). When a federal court declares an existing apportionment scheme unconstitutional, it is therefore, appropriate, whenever practicable, to afford a reasonable opportunity for the legislature to meet constitutional requirements by adopting a substitute measure rather than for the federal court to devise and order into effect its own plan. The new legislative plan, if forthcoming, will then be the governing law unless it, too, is challenged and found to violate the Constitution. “ [A] State’s freedom of choice to devise substitutes for an apportionment plan found unconstitutional, either as a whole or in part, should not be restricted beyond the clear commands of the Equal Protection Clause.” Id., at 86.
Legislative bodies should not leave their reapportionment tasks to the federal courts; but when those with legislative responsibilities do not respond, or the imminence of a state election makes it impractical for them to do so, it becomes the “unwelcome obligation,” Connor v. Finch, supra, at 415, of the federal court to devise and impose a reapportionment plan pending later legislative action. In discharging this duty, the district courts “will be held to stricter standards . . . than will a state legislature . . . .” 431 U. S., at 414. Among other requirements, a court-drawn plan should prefer single-member districts over multimember districts, absent persuasive justification to the contrary. Connor v. Johnson, 402 U. S. 690, 692 (1971). We have repeatedly reaffirmed this remedial principle. Connor v. Williams, 404 U. S. 549, 551 (1972); Mahan v. Howell, 410 U. S. 315, 333 (1973); Chapman v. Meier, supra, at 18; East Carroll Parish School Bd. v. Marshall, supra, at 639.
The requirement that federal courts, absent special circumstances, employ single-member districts when they impose remedial plans, reflects recognition of the fact that “the practice of multimember districting can contribute to voter confusion, make legislative representatives more remote from their constituents, and tend to submerge electoral minorities and overrepresent electoral majorities . . * .” Connor v. Finch, supra, at 415. See also Chapman v. Meier, supra, at 15-16. Despite these dangers, this Court has declined to hold that state multimember districts are per se unconstitutional. See, for example, Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U. S. 124 (1971); Fortson v. Dorsey, 379 U. S. 433 (1965); Burns v. Richardson, supra; Chapman v. Meier, supra, at 15. A more stringent standard is applied to judicial reapportionments, however, because a federal court, “lacking the political authoritativeness that the legislature can bring to the task,” must act “circumspectly, and in a manner ‘free from any taint of arbitrariness or discrimination.’ ” Connor v. Finch, supra, at 415, quoting from Roman v. Sincock, 377 U. S. 695, 710 (1964).
The foregoing principles, worked out in the course of reconciling the requirements of the Constitution with the goals of state political policy, are useful guidelines and serve to decide many cases. But, as is true in this case, their application to the facts presented is not always immediately obvious. Furthermore, the distinctive impact of § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 89 Stat. 404, 42 U. S. C. § 1973c (1970 ed., Supp. V), upon the power of the States to reapportion themselves must be observed. Plans imposed by court order are not subject to the requirements of § 5, but under that provision, a State or political subdivision subject to the Act may not “enact or seek to administer” any “different” voting qualification or procedure with respect to voting without either obtaining a declaratory judgment from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia that the proposed change “does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color” or submitting the change to the Attorney General and affording him an appropriate opportunity to object thereto. A new reapportionment plan enacted by a State, including one purportedly adopted in response to invalidation of the prior plan by a federal court, will not be considered “effective as law,” Connor v. Finch, 431 U. S., at 412; Connor v. Waller, 421 U. S. 656 (1975), until it has been submitted and has received clearance under § 5. Neither, in those circumstances, until clearance has been obtained, should a court address the constitutionality of the new measure. Connor v. Finch, supra; Connor v. Waller, supra. Pending such submission and clearance, if a State’s electoral processes are not to be completely frustrated, federal courts will at times necessarily be drawn further into the reapportionment process and required to devise and implement their own plans.
Ill
Texas was not subject to the Voting Rights Act when this case was pending in the District Court. Hence, insofar as federal law was concerned, when the District Court invalidated the provisions of the Dallas City Charter mandating at-large Council elections, the city was not only free but was expected to devise a substitute rather than to leave the matter to the District Court. This duty, the District Court found, was discharged when the city enacted the eight/three plan of electing Council members. Noting that only if “the legislature failed in [its reapportionment] task, would the responsibility fall to the federal courts” and declaring that the plan adopted by the Council was not one “hastily conceived merely for the purposes of this litigation,” 399 F. Supp., at 797, the District Court proceeded to declare the plan constitutional despite the use of at-large voting for three Council seats. Although there are some indications in the District Court’s opinion that it was striving to satisfy those rules governing federal courts when they devise their own reapportionment plans, it seems to us that on balance, the District Court, as the United States observes in its amicus brief, reviewed the apportionment plan proposed by the Council as a legislatively enacted plan.
The Court of Appeals was not in disagreement in this respect. It observed that “[t]he district court approved the City’s plan for relief, which was enacted as a city ordinance following the court’s decision that the prior system was unconstitutional.” 551 F. 2d, at 1045. It further noted that “the election plan [was] formally adopted by the City Council.” Id., at 1046.
Neither did the Court of Appeals disturb the ruling of the District Court that the ordinance was constitutional. It did, however, insist that the plan also satisfy the special preference for single-member districts applicable where district courts are themselves put to the task of devising reapportionment plans and reversed the judgment of the District Court because in its view the record did not disclose the presence of those special circumstances that would warrant departure from the rule. This was clearly error unless there was some convincing reason why the District Court was not entitled to consider the substitute plan under the principles applicable to legislatively adopted reapportionment plans. As we see it, no such reason has been presented.
It is suggested that the city was without power to enact the ordinance because the at-large system declared unconstitutional was established by the City Charter and because, under the Texas Constitution, Art. XI, § 5, and Texas statutory law, Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann., Art. 1170 (Vernon Supp. 1978), the Charter cannot be amended without a vote of the people. But the District Court was of a different view. Although the Council itself had no power to change the at-large system as long as the Charter provision remained intact, once the Charter provision was declared unconstitutional, and, in effect, null and void, the Council was free to exercise its legislative powers which it did by enacting the eight/three plan. 399 F. Supp., at 800; Tr. of Oral Arg. 6. When the City Council reapportioned itself by means of resolution and ordinance, it was not purporting to amend the City Charter but only to exercise its legislative powers as Dallas’ governing body. The Court of Appeals did not disagree with the District Court in this respect, and we are in no position to overturn the District Court’s acceptance of the city ordinance as a valid legislative response to the court’s declaration of unconstitutionality.
East Carroll Parish School Bd. v. Marshall does not support the conclusion of the Court of Appeals in this case that the plan presented by the city must be viewed as judicial rather than legislative. In that case the District Court instructed the East Carroll police jury and school boards to file reapportionment plans. They both submitted a multimember arrangement which the court adopted. We held that the District Court erred in approving a multimember plan because “when United States district courts are put to the task of fashioning reapportionment plans to supplant concededly invalid state legislation, single-member districts are to be preferred absent unusual circumstances.” 424 U. S., at 639. In reaching this conclusion, however, we emphasized that the bodies which submitted the plans did not purport to reapportion themselves and, furthermore, could not even legally do so under federal law because state legislation providing them with such powers had been disapproved by the Attorney General of the United States under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 424 U. S., at 638 n. 6, 637 n. 2. Under these circumstances, it was concluded that the mere act of submitting a plan was not the equivalent of a legislative Act of reapportionment performed in accordance with the political processes of the community in question.
Even if one disagreed with that conclusion, this case is markedly different from East Carroll Parish School Bd. After the District Court found that the existing method of electing the City Council was constitutionally defective on January 17, 1975, it “gave the City of Dallas an opportunity to perform its duty to enact a constitutionally acceptable plan.” 399 F. Supp., at 792. The City Council, the legislative body governing Dallas, promptly took advantage of this opportunity and on January 24, 1975, passed a resolution which stated “that it is the intention of the majority of this City Council to pass an ordinance [enacting a plan of eight single-member districts with three individuals, including the Mayor, to be elected at-large].” App. 188. On February 8, 1975, the District Court announced in an oral opinion following a hearing held to consider the constitutionality of the city’s plan that it was accepting the city’s plan but retained jurisdiction. Two days later, on February 10, the City Council, as promised, enacted an ordinance incorporating the eight/three plan. Id., at 189. In a written opinion filed subsequently, the District Court specifically found "that [the city of Dallas] has met ![its constitutional] duty in enacting the eight/three plan of electing council members.” 399 F. Supp., at 792. Here, unlike the situation in East Carroll Parish School Bd., as the Court there viewed it, the body governing Dallas validly fnet its responsibility of replacing the apportionment provision invalidated by the District Court with one which could survive constitutional scrutiny. The Court of Appeals therefore erred in regarding the plan as court imposed and in subjecting it to a level of scrutiny more stringent than that required by the Constitution.
Finally, it is urged that the Court of Appeals be affirmed because Texas became subject to § 5 of the Voting Rights Act while the case was pending on appeal and because under § 5, as amended, Dallas could neither enact nor seek to administer any reapportionment plan different from that in effect on November 1, 1972, without securing the clearance called for by that section. It is urged that the city ordinance of February 1975, relied upon by the District Court and validly enacted prior to § 5’s becoming applicable to 'Texas, cannot be considered as effective law until it has secured the necessary approval. The same is said with respect to the Charter amendment approved by the people of Dallas in 1976. See n. 3, supra.
We think it inappropriate, however, to address the § 5 issue. Respondents may, of course, seek to sustain the judgment below on grounds not employed by the Court of Appeals; but there is a preliminary question as to whether the § 5 issue is open in this Court. Respondents did not cross-petition, and sustaining the § 5 submission, even if it would not expand the relief in respondents’ favor, would alter the nature of the judgment issued by the Court of Appeals. See United States v. New York Telephone Co., 434 U. S. 159, 166 n. 8 (1977). In any event, however, we are not obligated to address the issue here, particularly where the Court of Appeals did not deal with it -one way or another — apparently because it considered the plan tb.be a judicial product beyond the reach of the section. The impact of the Voting Rights Act on the city ordinance and on the Charter amendment approved by referendum will be open on remand, and we deem it appropriate for the Court of Appeals to deal with these questions.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings.
So ordered.
Several plaintiffs, including all of the Mexican-American plaintiffs, were dismissed from the case for failure to respond to interrogatories. Two Mexican-Americans subsequently attempted to intervene. The District Court denied their application but later permitted several Mexican-Americans to participate in the remedy hearing held after the at-large election system was declared unconstitutional.
Petitioners did not appeal this ruling and do not question it here.
On April 1, 1975, the Dallas City Council election was held under the eight/three plan. During the pendency of the appeal the electorate approved this plan in a referendum conducted in April 1976, thus incorporating it into the City Charter.
The court stated that the city may provide for the election of the Mayor by general citywide election if it desired. Mr. Justice Powell stayed the Court of Appeals’ judgment pending disposition by this Court. 434 U. S. 1329 (1977).
The numerous cases in which this Court has required the use of single-member districts in court-ordered reapportionment plans have all involved apportionment schemes which, unlike the one in this case, were held unconstitutional because they departed from the one-person, one-vote rule of Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533 (1964), and its progeny. We are fully persuaded, however, that the same considerations which have induced this Court to express a preference for single-member districts in court-ordered reapportionment plans designed to remedy violations of the one-person, one-vote rule compel a similar rule with regard to court-imposed reappor-tionments designed to cure the dilution of the voting strength of racial minorities resulting from unconstitutional racial discrimination. Indeed, the Court has justified the preference for single-member districts in judicially imposed reapportionments on the ground that multimember districts “tend to submerge electoral minorities and overrepresent electoral majorities . . . ,” which is the source of the very violation which the court is seeking to eliminate in racial dilution eases. Connor v. Finch, 431 U. S. 407, 415 (1977). See White v. Regester, 412 U. S. 755, 765-770 (1973).
“A decree of the United States District Court is not within reach of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.” Connor v. Johnson, 402 U. S. 690, 691 (1971).
In his oral announcement, the judge remarked: “I’m not saying it’s the best plan. It’s not even the plan that this Court would have drawn. But this Court’s not in the plan-drawing business. That’s the legislative duty.” Record 195.
The record suggests no statutory, state constitutional, or judicial prohibition upon the authority of the City Council to enact a municipal election plan under circumstances such as this and respondents have been unable to cite any support for its contention that the City Council exceeded its authority. It must be noted that since there is no provision under Texas law for reapportionment of Home Rule cities such as Dallas by the state legislature, or other state agency, acceptance of respondents’ position would leave Dallas utterly powerless to reapportion itself in those instances where the time remaining before the next scheduled election is too brief to permit the approval of a new plan by referendum. We are unwilling to adopt such an interpretation of Texas and Dallas law in the absence of any indication whatsoever that it would be accepted by Texas courts.
In light of our disposition, we do not consider petitioners’ claim that the Court of Appeals also erred in holding that the alleged effect of all single-member districts on the representation of Mexican-American voters and the desirability of permitting some citywide representation did not constitute special circumstances justifying departure from the preference for single-member districts in remedial reapportionments conducted by federal courts.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Trans World Airlines, Inc. (TWA), a commercial airline, permits captains disqualifed from serving in that capacity for reasons other than age to transfer automatically to the position of flight engineer. In this case, we must decide whether the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 81 Stat. 602, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 621 et seq., requires the airline to afford this same “privilege of employment” to those captains disqualified by their age. We also must decide what constitutes a “willful” violation of the ADEA, entitling a plaintiff to “liquidated” or double damages.
I
A
TWA has approximately 3,000 employees who fill the three cockpit positions on most of its flights. The “captain” is the pilot and controls the aircraft. He is responsible for all phases of its operation. The “first officer” is the copilot and assists the captain. The “flight engineer” usually monitors a side-facing instrument panel. He does no.t operate the flight controls unless the captain and the first officer become incapacitated.
In 1977, TWA and the Airline Pilots Association (ALPA) entered into a collective-bargaining agreement, under which every employee in a cockpit position was required to retire when he reached the age of 60. This provision for mandatory retirement was lawful under the ADEA, as part of a “bona fide seniority system.” See United Air Lines, Inc. v. McMann, 434 U. S. 192 (1977). On April 6, 1978, however, the Act was amended to prohibit the mandatory retirement of a protected individual because of his age. TWA officials became concerned that the company’s retirement policy, at least as it applied to flight engineers, violated the amended ADEA.
On July 19, 1978, TWA announced that the amended ADEA prohibited the forced retirement of flight engineers at age 60. The company thus proposed a new policy, under which employees in all three cockpit positions, upon reaching age 60, would be allowed to continue working as flight engineers. TWA stated that it would not implement its new policy until it “had the benefit of [ALPA’s] views.” ALPA’s views were not long in coming. The Union contended that the collective-bargaining agreement prohibited the employment of a flight engineer after his 60th birthday and that the proposed change was not required by the recently amended ADEA.
Despite opposition from the Union, TWA adopted a modified version of its proposal. Under this plan, any employee in “flight engineer status” at age 60 is entitled to continue working in that capacity. The new plan, unlike the initial proposal, does not give 60-year-old captains the right automatically to begin training as flight engineers. Instead, a captain may remain with the airline only if he has been able to obtain “flight engineer status” through the bidding procedures outlined in the collective-bargaining agreement. These procedures require a captain, prior to his 60th birthday, to submit a “standing bid” for the position of flight engineer. When a vacancy occurs, it is assigned to the most senior captain with a standing bid. If no vacancy occurs prior to his 60th birthday, or if he lacks sufficient seniority to bid successfully for those vacancies that do occur, the captain is retired.
Under the collective-bargaining agreement, a captain displaced for any reason besides age need not resort to the bidding procedures. For example, a captain unable to maintain the requisite first-class medical certificate, see 14 CFR § 67.13 (1984), may displace automatically, or “bump,” a less senior flight engineer. The medically disabled captain’s ability to bump does not depend upon the availability of a vacancy. Similarly, a captain whose position is eliminated' due to reduced manpower needs can “bump” a less senior flight engineer. Even if a captain is found to be incompetent to serve in that capacity, he is not discharged, but is allowed to transfer to a position as flight engineer without resort to the bidding procedures.
Respondents Harold Thurston, Christopher J. Clark, and Clifton A. Parkhill, former captains for TWA, were retired upon reaching the age of 60. Each was denied an opportunity to “bump” a less senior flight engineer. Thurston was forced to retire on May 26, 1978, before the company adopted its new policy. Clark did not attempt to bid because TWA had advised him that bidding would not affect his chances of obtaining a transfer. These two captains thus effectively were denied an opportunity to become flight engineers through the bidding procedures. The third captain, Park-hill, did file a standing bid for the position of flight engineer. No vacancies occurred prior to Parkhill’s 60th birthday, however, and he too was forced to retire.
B
Thurston, Clark, and Parkhill filed this action against TWA and ALPA in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. They argued that the company’s transfer policy violated ADE A § 4(a)(1), 81 Stat. 603, 29 U. S. C. § 623(a)(1). The airline allowed captains displaced for reasons other than age to “bump” less senior flight engineers. Captains compelled to vacate their positions upon reaching age 60, they claimed, should be afforded this same “privilege of employment.” The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission intervened on behalf of 10 other age-disqualified captains who had been discharged as a result of their inability to displace less senior flight engineers.
The District Court entered a summary judgment in favor of defendants TWA and ALPA. Air Line Pilots Assn. v. Trans World Air Lines, 547 F. Supp. 1221 (1982). The court held that the plaintiffs had failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination under the test set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792 (1973). None could show that at the time of his transfer request a vacancy existed for the position of flight engineer. See id., at 802. Furthermore, the court found that two affirmative defenses justified the company’s transfer policy. 29 U. S. C. §§ 623(f)(1) and (f)(2). The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the District Court’s judgment. 713 F. 2d 940 (1983). It found the McDonnell Douglas formula inapposite because the plaintiffs had adduced direct proof of age discrimination. Captains disqualified for reasons other than age were allowed to “bump” less senior flight engineers. Therefore, the company was required by ADEA § 4(a)(1), 29 U. S. C. § 623(a)(1), to afford 60-year-old captains this same “privilege of employment.” The Court of Appeals also held that the affirmative defenses of the ADEA did not justify the company’s discriminatory transfer policy. 713 F. 2d, at 949-951. TWA was held liable for “liquidated” or double damages because its violation of the ADEA was found to be “willful.” According to the court, an employer’s conduct is “willful” if it “knows or shows reckless disregard for the matter of whether its conduct is prohibited by the ADEA.” Id., at 956. Because “TWA was clearly aware of the 1978 ADEA amendments,” the Court of Appeals found the respondents entitled to double damages. Id., at 956-957.
TWA filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in which it challenged the Court of Appeals’ holding that the transfer policy violated the ADEA and that TWA’s violation was “willful.” The Union filed a cross-petition raising only the liability issue. We granted certiorari in both eases, and consolidated them for argument. 466 U. S. 926 (1984). We now affirm as to the violation of the ADEA, and reverse as to the claim for double damages.
II
A
The ADEA “broadly prohibits arbitrary discrimination in the workplace based on age.” Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U. S. 575, 577 (1978). Section 4(a)(1) of the Act proscribes differential treatment of older workers “with respect to... [a] privilegie] of employment.” 29 U. S. C. § 623(a). Under TWA’s transfer policy, 60-year-old captains are denied a “privilege of employment” on the basis of age. Captains who become disqualified from serving in that position for reasons other than age automatically are able to displace less senior flight engineers. Captains disqualified because of age are not afforded this same “bumping” privilege. Instead, they are forced to resort to the bidding procedures set forth in the collective-bargaining agreement. If there is no vacancy prior to a bidding captain’s 60th birthday, he must retire.
The Act does not require TWA to grant transfer privileges to disqualified captains. Nevertheless, if TWA does grant some disqualified captains the “privilege” of “bumping” less senior flight engineers, it may not deny this opportunity to others because of their age. In Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U. S. 69 (1984), we held that “[a] benefit that is part and parcel of the employment relationship may not be doled out in a discriminatory fashion, even if the employer would be free... not to provide the benefit at all.” Id., at 75. This interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. § 2000(e) et seq., applies with equal force in the context of age discrimination, for the substantive provisions of the ADEA “were derived in haec verba from Title VII.” Lorillard v. Pons, supra, at 584.
TWA contends that the respondents failed to make out a prima facie case of age discrimination under McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411 U. S. 792 (1973), because at the time they were retired, no flight engineer vacancies existed. This argument fails, for the McDonnell Douglas test is inapplicable where the plaintiff presents direct evidence of discrimination. See Teamsters v. United States, 431 U. S. 324, 358, n. 44 (1977). The shifting burdens of proof set forth in McDonnell Douglas are designed to assure that the “plaintiff [has] his day in court despite the unavailability of direct evidence.” Loeb v. Textron, Inc., 600 F. 2d 1003, 1014 (CA1 1979). In this case there is direct evidence that the method of transfer available to a disqualified captain depends upon his age. Since it allows captains who become disqualified for any reason other than age to “bump” less senior flight engineers, TWA’s transfer policy is discriminatory on its face. Cf. Los Angeles Dept. of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U. S. 702 (1978) (employer’s policy requiring female employees to make larger contribution to pension fund than male employees is discriminatory on its face).
B
Although we find that TWA’s transfer policy discriminates against disqualified captains on the basis of age, our inquiry cannot end here. Petitioners contend that the age-based transfer policy is justified by two of the ADEA’s five affirmative defenses. Petitioners first argue that the discharge of respondents was lawful because age is a “bona fide occupational qualification” (BFOQ) for the position of captain. 29 U. S. C. § 623(f)(1). Furthermore, TWA claims that its retirement policy is part of a “bona fide seniority system,” and thus exempt from the Act’s coverage. 29 U. S. C. § 623(f)(2).
Section 4(f)(1) of the ADEA provides that an employer may take “any action otherwise prohibited” where age is a “bona fide occupational qualification.” 29 U. S. C. § 623(f)(1). In order to be permissible under § 4(f)(1), however, the age-based discrimination must relate to a “particular business.” Ibid. Every court to consider the issue has assumed that the “particular business” to which the statute refers is the job from which the protected individual is excluded. In Weeks v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 408 F. 2d 228 (CA5 1969), for example, the court considered the Title VII claim of a female employee who, because of her sex, had not been allowed to transfer to the position of switchman. In deciding that the BFOQ defense was not available to the defendant, the court considered only the job of switchman.
TWA’s discriminatory transfer policy is not permissible under § 4(f)(1) because age is not a BFOQ for the “particular” position of flight engineer. It is necessary to recognize that the airline has two age-based policies: (i) captains are not allowed to serve in that capacity after reaching the age of 60; and (ii) age-disqualified captains are not given the transfer privileges afforded captains disqualified for other reasons. The first policy, which precludes individuals from serving as captains, is not challenged by respondents. The second practice does not operate to exclude protected individuals from the position of captain; rather it prevents qualified 60-year-olds from working as flight engineers. Thus, it is the “particular” job of flight engineer from which the respondents were excluded by the discriminatory transfer policy. Because age under 60 is not a BFOQ for the position of flight engineer, the age-based discrimination at issue in this case cannot be justified by § 4(f)(1).
TWA nevertheless contends that its BFOQ argument is supported by the legislative history of the amendments to the ADEA. In 1978, Congress amended ADEA § 4(f)(2), 29 U. S. C. § 623(f)(2), to prohibit the involuntary retirement of protected individuals on the basis of age. Some Members of Congress were concerned that this amendment might be construed as limiting the employer’s ability to terminate workers subject to a valid BFOQ. The Senate proposed an amendment to § 4(f)(1) providing that an employer could establish a mandatory retirement age where age is a BFOQ. S. Rep. No. 95-493, pp. 11, 24 (1977). In the Conference Committee, however, the proposed amendment was withdrawn because “the [Senate] conferees agreed that... [it] neither added to nor worked any change upon present law.” H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 95-950, p. 7 (1978). The House Committee Report also indicated that an individual could be compelled to retire from a position for which age was a BFOQ. H. R. Rep. No. 95-527, pt. 1, p. 12 (1977).
The legislative history of the 1978 Amendments does not support petitioners’ position. The history shows only that the ADEA does not prohibit TWA from retiring all disqualified captains, including those who are incapacitated because of age. This does not mean, however, that TWA can make dependent upon the age of the individual the availability of a transfer to a position for which age is not a BFOQ. Nothing in the legislative history cited by petitioners indicates a congressional intention to allow an employer to discriminate against an older worker seeking to transfer to another position, on the ground that age was a BFOQ for his former job.
TWA also contends that its discriminatory transfer policy is lawful under the Act because it is part of a “bona fide seniority system.” 29 U. S. C. § 623(f)(2). The Court of Appeals held that the airline’s retirement policy is not mandated by the negotiated seniority plan. We need not address this finding; any seniority system that includes the challenged practice is not “bona fide” under the statute. The Act provides that a seniority system may not “require or permit” the involuntary retirement of a protected individual because of his age. Ibid. Although the FAA “age 60 rule” may have caused respondents’ retirement, TWA’s seniority plan certainly “permitted” it within the meaning of the ADEA. Ibid. Moreover, because captains disqualified for reasons other than age are allowed to “bump” less senior flight engineers, the mandatory retirement was age-based. Therefore, the “bona fide seniority system” defense is unavailable to the petitioners.
In summary, TWA’s transfer policy discriminates against protected individuals on the basis of age, and thereby violates the Act. The two statutory defenses raised by petitioners do not support the argument that this discrimination is justified. The BFOQ defense is meritless because age is not a bona fide occupational qualification for the position of flight engineer, the job from which the respondents were excluded. Nor can TWA’s policy be viewed as part of a bona fide seniority system. A system that includes this discriminatory transfer policy permits the forced retirement of captains on the basis of age.
Ill
A
Section 7(b) of the ADEA, 81 Stat. 604, 29 U. S. C. § 626(b), provides that the rights created by the Act are to be “enforced in accordance with the powers, remedies, and procedures” of the Fair Labor Standards Act. See Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U. S., at 579. But the remedial provisions of the two statutes are not identical. Congress declined to incorporate into the ADEA several FLSA sections. Moreover, § 16(b) of the FLSA, which makes the award of liquidated damages mandatory, is significantly qualified in ADEA § 7(b) by a proviso that a prevailing plaintiff is entitled to double damages “only in cases of willful violations.” 29 U. S. C. § 626(b). In this case, the Court of Appeals held that TWA’s violation of the ADEA was “willful,” and that the respondents therefore were entitled to double damages. 713 F. 2d, at 957. We granted certiorari to review this holding.
The legislative history of the ADEA indicates that Congress intended for liquidated damages to be punitive in nature. The original bill proposed by the administration incorporated § 16(a) of the FLSA, which imposes criminal liability for a willful violation. See 113 Cong. Rec. 2199 (1967). Senator Javits found “certain serious defects” in the administration bill. He stated that “difficult problems of proof... would arise under a criminal provision,” and that the employer’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment might impede investigation, conciliation, and enforcement. Id., at 7076. Therefore, he proposed that “the [FLSA’s] criminal penalty in cases of willful violation... [be] eliminated and a double damage liability substituted.” Ibid. Senator Javits argued that his proposed amendment would “furnish an effective deterrent to willful violations [of the ADEA],” ibid., and it was incorporated into the ADEA with only minor modification, S. 788, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967).
This Court has recognized that in enacting the ADEA, “Congress exhibited... a detailed knowledge of the FLSA provisions and their judicial interpretation....” Lorillard v. Pons, supra, at 581. The manner in which FLSA § 16(a) has been interpreted therefore is relevant. In general, courts have found that an employer is subject to criminal penalties under the FLSA when he “wholly disregards the law... without making any reasonable effort to determine whether the plan he is following would constitute a violation of the law.” Nabob Oil Co. v. United States, 190 F. 2d 478, 479 (CA10), cert. denied, 342 U. S. 876 (1951); see also Darby v. United States, 132 F. 2d 928 (CA5 1943). This standard is substantially in accord with the interpretation of “willful” adopted by the Court of Appeals in interpreting the liquidated damages provision of the ADEA. The court below stated that a violation of the Act was “willful” if “the employer... knew or showed reckless disregard for the matter of whether its conduct was prohibited by the ADEA.” 713 F. 2d, at 956. Given the legislative history of the liquidated damages provision, we think the “reckless disregard” standard is reasonable.
The definition of “willful” adopted by the above cited courts is consistent with the manner in which this Court has interpreted the term in other criminal and civil statutes. In United States v. Murdock, 290 U. S. 389 (1933), the defendant was prosecuted under the Revenue Acts of 1926 and 1928, which made it a misdemeanor for a person “willfully” to fail to pay the required tax. The Murdock Court stated that conduct was “willful” within the meaning of this criminal statute if it was “marked by careless disregard [for] whether or not one has the right so to act.” Id., at 395. In United States v. Illinois Central R. Co., 303 U. S. 239 (1938), the Court applied the Murdock definition of “willful” in a civil case. There, the defendant’s failure to unload a cattle car was “willful,” because it showed a disregard for the governing statute and an indifference to its requirements. 303 U. S., at 242-243.
The respondents argue that an employer’s conduct is willful if he is “cognizant of an appreciable possibility that the employees involved were covered by the [ADEA].” In support of their position, the respondents cite § 6 of the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 (PPA), 29 U. S. C. § 255(a), which is incorporated in both the ADEA and the FLSA. Section 6 of the PPA provides for a 2-year statute of limitations period unless the violation is willful, in which case the limitations period is extended to three years. 29 U. S. C. § 255(a). Several courts have held that a violation is willful within the meaning of § 6 if the employer knew that the ADEA was “in the picture.” See, e. g., Coleman v. Jiffy June Farms, Inc., 458 F. 2d 1139, 1142 (CA5 1971), cert. denied, 409 U. S. 948 (1972); EEOC v. Central Kansas Medical Center, 705 F. 2d 1270, 1274 (CA10 1983). Respondents contend that the term “willful” should be interpreted in a similar manner in applying the liquidated damages provision of the ADEA.
We are unpersuaded by respondents’ argument that a violation of the Act is “willful” if the employer simply knew of the potential applicability of the ADEA. Even if the “in the picture” standard were appropriate for the statute of limitations, the same standard should not govern a provision dealing with liquidated damages. More importantly, the broad standard proposed by the respondents would result in an award of double damages in almost every case. As employers are required to post ADEA notices, it would be virtually impossible for an employer to show that he was unaware of the Act and its potential applicability. Both the legislative history and the structure of the statute show that Congress intended a two-tiered liability scheme. We decline to interpret the liquidated damages provision of ADEA § 7(b) in a manner that frustrates this intent.
B
As noted above, the Court of Appeals stated that a violation is “willful” if “the employer either knew or showed reckless disregard for the matter of whether its conduct was prohibited by the ADEA.” 713 F. 2d, at 956. Although we hold that this is an acceptable way to articulate a definition of “willful,” the court below misapplied this standard. TWA certainly did not “know” that its conduct violated the Act. Nor can it fairly be said that TWA adopted its transfer policy in “reckless disregard” of the Act’s requirements. The record makes clear that TWA officials acted reasonably and in good faith in attempting to determine whether their plan would violate the ADEA. See Nabob Oil Co. v. United States, supra.
Shortly after the ADEA was amended, TWA officials met with their lawyers to determine whether the mandatory retirement policy violated the Act. Concluding that the company’s existing plan was inconsistent with the ADEA, David Crombie, the airline’s Senior Vice President for Administration, proposed a new policy. Despite opposition from the Union, the company adopted a modified version of this initial proposal. Under the plan adopted on August 10, 1978, any pilot in “flight engineer status” on his 60th birthday could continue to work for the airline. On the day the plan was adopted, the Union filed suit against the airline claiming that the new retirement policy constituted a “major” change in the collective-bargaining agreement, and thus was barred by § 6 of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U. S. C. § 156. Nevertheless, TWA adhered to its new policy.
As evidence of “willfulness,” respondents point to comments made by J. E. Frankum, the Vice President of Flight Operations. After Crombie was hospitalized in August 1978, Frankum assumed responsibility for bringing TWA’s retirement policy into conformance with the ADEA. Despite legal advice to the contrary, Frankum initially believed that the company was not required to allow any pilot over 60 to work. Frankum later abandoned this position in favor of the plan approved on August 10, 1978. Frankum apparently had been concerned only about whether flight engineers could work af ter reaching the age of 60. There is no indication that TWA was ever advised by counsel that its new transfer policy discriminated against captains on the basis of age.
There simply is no evidence that TWA acted in “reckless disregard” of the requirements of the ADEA. The airline had obligations under the collective-bargaining agreement with the Airline Pilots Association. In an attempt to bring its retirement policy into compliance with the ADEA, while at the same time observing the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement, TWA sought legal advice and consulted with the Union. Despite opposition from the Union, a plan was adopted that permitted cockpit employees to work as “flight engineers” after reaching age 60. Apparently TWA officials and the airline’s attorneys failed to focus specifically on the effect of each aspect of the new retirement policy for cockpit personnel. It is reasonable to believe that the parties involved, in focusing on the larger overall problem, simply overlooked the challenged aspect of the new plan. We conclude that TWA’s violation of the Act was not willful within the meaning of § 7(b), and that respondents therefore are not entitled to liquidated damages.
IV
The ADEA requires TWA to afford 60-year-old captains the same transfer privileges that it gives to captains disqualified for reasons other than age. Therefore, we affirm the Court of Appeals on this issue. We do not agree with its holding that TWA’s violation of the Act was willful. We accordingly reverse its judgment that respondents are entitled to liquidated or double damages.
It is so ordered.
On certain long-distance flights, a fourth crew member, the “international relief officer,” is in the cockpit. On some types of aircraft, there are only two cockpit positions.
Section 2(a) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act Amendments of 1978, Pub. L. 95-256, 92 Stat. 189, 29 U. S. C. § 623(f)(2).
A regulation promulgated by the Federal Aviation Administration prohibits anyone from serving after age 60 as a pilot on a commercial carrier. 14 CFR § 121.383(c)(1984). Captains and first officers are considered “pilots” subject to this regulation; flight engineers are not. Therefore, TWA officials were concerned primarily with the effect that the 1978 amendments had on the company’s policy of mandatory retirement of flight engineers.
The proposal was announced in a letter to ALPA from David Crombie, TWA’s Senior Vice President for Administration.
On the same date that TWA implemented its new policy, ALPA filed suit against the company. ALPA contended that TWA’s action constituted a “unilateral change in working conditions,” and hence was violative of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U. S. C. §§ 156-188. This action, ALPA v. Trans World Airlines, was consolidated with the present action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. That court granted summary judgment in favor of TWA, and the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. It held that the new retirement policy did not constitute a “major” change in the existing terms and conditions of employment, and that the Union therefore was without a remedy in the federal courts. See 45 U. S. C. § 156.
The term “captain” will hereinafter be used to refer to both the positions of captain and first officer.
In 1980, TWA imposed an additional restriction on captains bidding for flight engineer positions. Successful bidders were required to “fulfill their bids in a timely manner.” Under this amended practice, captains who bid successfully for positions as flight engineers were required to “activate” their bids immediately. As a result, many captains under age 60 were trained for and assumed flight engineer positions, with resulting lower pay and responsibility.
The pilot must be able to obtain the second-class medical certificate that is required for the position of flight engineer. See 14 CFR § 67.15 (1984).
If the disabled captain lacks sufficient seniority to displace, he is not discharged. Rather, he is entitled to go on unpaid medical leave for up to five years, during which time he retains and continues to accrue seniority.
Only those flight engineers in the current and last former domiciles of the displaced captain may be “bumped.” If a captain has insufficient seniority to displace a flight engineer at either of these domiciles, he is not discharged. Instead, he is placed in furlough status for a period of up to 10 years, during which time he continues to accrue seniority for purposes of a recall.
Although the collective-bargaining agreement does not address disciplinary downgrades, TWA’s Vice President of Flight Operations, J. E. Frankum, stated that such downgrades had occurred “many times over many years.”
Captains disqualified for other reasons also are allowed to “bump” less senior flight engineers. For example, the collective-bargaining agreement provides that a captain who fails to “requalify” in that position will not be discharged.
Three of the EEOC claimants have settled with TWA. The remaining seven claimants are Lusk, Bobzin, Gowling, Widmayer, Humbles, Roque-more, and Lewis. Lusk and Bobzin were retired prior to August 10,1978. Thus, like Harold Thurston, they had no way of knowing that the bidding procedures of the collective-bargaining agreement would represent a possible means of transferring to the position of flight engineer.
Gowling, Widmayer, Humbles, and Roquemore submitted standing bids for the position of flight engineer. Because no vacancies occurred prior to the time that they reached the age of 60, each was discharged.
Lewis submitted a bid and was awarded a position as flight engineer on October 31, 1979. On January 15,1980, he was told that he would have to “fulfill his bid in a timely manner.” See n. 7, supra. Because this would have required Lewis to assume his new position almost a year prior to his 60th birthday, he refused to appear for training. Therefore, his bid was canceled by TWA.
The Court of Appeals also found that ALPA had violated ADEA § 4(e), 29 U. S. C. § 623(c), which prohibits unions from causing or attempting to cause an employer to engage in unlawful discrimination. The court found, however, that ALPA was not liable for damages. It held that the ADEA does not permit the recovery of monetary damages, including backpay, against a labor organization. It noted that the ADEA incorporates the remedial scheme of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which does not allow actions against unions to recover damages. 713 F. 2d, at 957.
In its petition for a writ of certiorari, TWA raised the issue of a union’s liability for damages under the ADEA. Although we granted the petition in full, we now conclude that the Court is without jurisdiction to consider this question. TWA was not the proper party to present this question. The airline cannot assert the right of others to recover damages against the Union.
Both the individual respondents and the EEOC argue that the issue of union liability is properly before the Court. But the respondents failed to file a cross-petition raising this question. A prevailing party may advance any ground in support of a judgment in his favor. Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471, 475, n. 6 (1970). An argument that would modify the judgment, however, cannot be presented unless a cross-petition has been filed. FEA v. Algonquin SNG, Inc., 426 U. S. 548, 560, n. 11 (1976). In this case, the judgment of the Court of Appeals would be modified by the arguments advanced by the EEOC and the individual plaintiffs, as they are contending that the Union should be liable to them for monetary damages.
The discriminatory transfer policy may violate the Act even though 83% of the 60-year-old captains were able to obtain positions as flight engineers through the bidding procedures. See Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., 400 U. S. 542 (1971) (per curiam).
It also should be noted that many of the captains who obtained positions as flight engineers were forced to assume that position prior to reaching age 60. See n. 7, supra. They were adversely affected by the discriminatory transfer policy despite the fact that they obtained positions as flight engineers.
Several Courts of Appeals have recognized the similarity between the two statutes. In Hodgson v. First Federal Savings & Loan Assn., 455 F. 2d 818, 820 (1972), for example, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stated that with “a few minor exceptions the prohibitions of [the ADEA] are in terms identical to those of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”
In this litigation, the respondents have not challenged TWA’s claim that the FAA regulation establishes a BFOQ for the position of captain. The EEOC guidelines, however, do not list the FAA’s age-60 rule as an example of a BFOQ because the EEOC wishes to avoid any appearance that it endorses the rule. 29 CFR § 1625 (1984).
The petitioners do not contend that age is a BFOQ for the position of flight engineer. Indeed, the airline has employed at least 148 flight engineers who are over 60 years old.
Courts-.below have held that an employer’s action may be “willful,” within the meaning of §
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue in this case is whether Congress constitutionally may decline to grant Supplemental Security Income benefits to a class of otherwise eligible individuals who are excluded because they are aged 21 through 64 and are institutionalized in public mental institutions that do not receive Medicaid funds for their care. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois held unconstitutional, under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, that portion of the Social Security Act, as amended, that excludes these otherwise eligible persons from the supplemental benefits. The Secretary of Health and Human Services has taken a direct appeal to this Court under 28 U. S: C. § 1252.
I
In October 1972, Congress amended the Social Security Act (Act) to create the federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, effective January 1, 1974. 86 Stat. 1465, 42 U. S. C. § 1381 et seq. This program was intended “[t]o assist those who cannot work because of age, blindness, or disability,” S. Rep. No. 92-1230, p. 4 (1972), by “set[ting] a Federal guaranteed minimum income level for aged, blind, and disabled persons,” id., at 12.
The SSI program provides a subsistence allowance, under federal standards, to the Nation’s needy aged, blind, and disabled. Included within the category of “disabled” under the program are all those “unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve months.” § 1614 (a)(3)(A) of the Act, 42 U. S. C. § 1382c (a)(3)(A).
Although the SSI program is broad in its reach, its coverage is not complete. From its very inception, the program has excluded from eligibility anyone who is an “inmate of a public institution.” § 1611 (e) (1) (A) of the Act, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1382 (e)(1)(A). Also from the program’s inception, Congress has made a partial exception to this exclusion by providing a small amount of money (not exceeding $300 per year) to any otherwise eligible person in “a hospital, extended care facility, nursing home, or intermediate care facility receiving payments (with respect to such individual or spouse) under a State plan approved under subchapter XIX [Medicaid]...” § 1611 (e)(1)(B), as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1382 (e)(1)(B). Congress thus, while excluding generally any person residing in a public institution, explicitly has tied eligibility for a reduced amount of SSI benefits to residence in an institution receiving Medicaid benefits for the care of the eligible individual.
Appellees brought this suit to challenge this resulting detail of Congress’ having conditioned the limited assistance grant on eligibility for Medicaid: a person between the ages of 21 through 64 who resides in a public mental institution is not eligible to receive this small stipend, even though that person meets the other eligibility requirements for SSI benefits, because treatment in a public mental institution for a person in this age bracket is not funded under Medicaid.
Appellees attack this statutory classification as violative of the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Their challenge, successful in the District Court, is twofold. First, they argue that the exclusion of their class of mentally ill (and therefore disabled) persons bears no rational relationship to any legitimate objective of the SSI program. They assert, in fact, that their class was excluded inadvertently because of its political powerlessness. Brief for Appellees 6, 32. Second, they insist that because the statute classifies on the basis of mental illness, a factor that greatly resembles other characteristics that this Court has found inherently “suspect” as a means of legislative classification, special justification should be required for the congressional decision to exclude appellees.
II
This case has had a somewhat complex procedural history. It initially was instituted in December 1973 as a class action for injunctive and declaratory relief to challenge the federal and Illinois assistance schemes that prevailed prior to, the effective date of the SSI program. See Wilson v. Edelman, 542 F. 2d 1260, 1263-1266 (CA7 1976). The then-existing state assistance program, for which federal funds were received, excluded from eligibility any person who was residing in a public mental or tuberculosis institution or who was confined in a penal institution. Id., at 1263, n. 2. The plaintiffs later amended their complaint to include a challenge to the SSI exclusion, which by then had come into effect. Id., at 1266. A three-judge court was convened under 28 U. S. C. §§2281 and 2282 (1970 ed.) (since repealed by Pub. L. 94-381, §§ 1 and 2, 90 Stat. 1119). The case was consolidated with another that challenged the exclusion from SSI benefits of any pretrial detainee. Relying on Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U. S. 749 (1975), the court granted the- Secretary’s motion to dismiss both cases for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to exhaust the administrative remedies provided for by § 1631 (c)(3) of the Act, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1383 (c)(3). See 542 F. 2d, at 1267-1268.
On appeal, appellees abandoned their claims under the prior federal statutes. Id., at 1271. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the dismissal, holding that the Secretary (then Patricia Harris) had waived any requirement of exhaustion by her submission of the case to the District Court for summary disposition. Id., at 1272. Because the plaintiffs had dropped their request for injunctive relief, the case was remanded to the single-judge District Court. Id., at 1269. That court, on remand, certified the class and granted appellees’ motion for summary judgment, holding that § 1382 (e)’s exclusion of the class members violated the equal protection guarantee of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Sterling v. Harris, 478 F. Supp. 1046 (ND Ill. 1979). The District Court reasoned that the statute “creates three classifications: (1) age, and (2) residence in a public, (3) mental health hospital.” Id., at 1050. It ruled that Congress’ use of the first two factors need be justified only by demonstration of their “rational relationship” to “a legitimate state interest.” Ibid. Under that standard, these classifications withstood scrutiny. Congress’ use, however, of a “mental health” classification was deemed to require a closer examination because “mental health classifications possess the significant indicia of the suspect classifications recognized in other cases.” Id., at 1052. Although recognizing that the mentally ill as a group do not demonstrate all the characteristics this Court has considered as denoting inherently suspicious classifications, such as race and national origin, the District Court believed that the mentally ill were “a politically impotent, insular minority” that “have been subject to a ‘history of unequal protection.’ ” Ibid. The court therefore concluded that Congress could legislatively disfavor the mentally ill, as § 1611 (e) did, only if the statutory classification passes an “intermediate level of judicial scrutiny,” id., at 1053, that is, only if the “classification bears a substantial relation” to the object of the legislation evaluated “in light of the primary purpose” of the scheme of which it is a part. Ibid. The court adjudged that the “primary purpose” of the small monthly stipend was to enable the needy to purchase comfort items not provided by the institution. Rejecting the Secretary’s proposed justifications for the exclusion, the District Court held that the classification could not withstand scrutiny. The legislative history, it said, revealed no intent to exclude appellees’ class; the court could conceive of no “possible unexpressed purpose for the exclusion”; and the court reasoned that “aged, blind and disabled inmates of all public institutions would have similar needs.” Ibid. Upon the Secretary’s direct appeal from this judgment, we noted probable jurisdiction. Harris v. Wilson, 446 U. S. 964 (1980).
Ill
A
The equal protection obligation imposed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment is not an obligation to provide the best governance possible. This is a necessary result of different institutional competences, and its reasons are obvious. Unless a statute employs a classification that is inherently invidious or that impinges on fundamental rights, areas in which the judiciary then has a duty to intervene in the democratic process, this Court properly exercises only a limited review power over Congress, the appropriate representative body through which the public makes democratic choices among alternative solutions to social and economic problems. See San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 1 (1973). At the minimum level, this Court consistently has required that legislation classify the persons it affects in a manner rationally related to legitimate governmental objectives. See, e. g., Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471 (1970); Mathews v. De Castro, 429 U. S. 181 (1976). Appellees assert that the particular grant of federal benefits under review here, however, should “be subjected to a heightened standard of review,” Brief for Appellees 39, because the mentally ill “historically have been subjected to purposeful unequal treatment; they have been relegated to a position of political powerlessness; and prejudice against them curtails their participation in the pluralist political system and strips them of political protection against discriminatory legislation.” (Footnote omitted.) Id., at 41.
We have no occasion to reach this issue because we conclude that this statute does not classify directly on the basis of mental health. The SSI program distinguishes among three groups of persons, all of whom meet the basic eligibility requirements: persons not in a “public institution” may receive full benefits; persons in a “public institution” of a certain nature (“hospital, extended care facility, nursing home, or intermediate care facility receiving payments (with respect to such individual or spouse)... under [Medicaid])” (emphasis added), § 1611 (e)(1)(B), may receive reduced benefits; and persons in any other “public institution” may not receive any benefits. The statute does not isolate the mentally ill or subject them, as a discrete group, to special or subordinate treatment. At the most, this legislation incidentally denies a small monthly comfort benefit to a certain number of persons suffering from mental illness; but in so doing it imposes equivalent deprivation on other groups who are not mentally ill, while at the same time benefiting substantial numbers of the mentally ill.
The group thus singled out for special treatment by § 1611 (e) does not entirely exclude the mentally ill. In fact, it includes, in a sizable proportion to the total population receiving SSI benefits, large numbers of mentally ill people. Further, the group excluded is not congruent with appellees’ class. Among those excluded are the inmates of any other nonmedical “public institution,” such as a prison, other penal institution, and any other publicly funded residential program the State may operate; persons residing in a tuberculosis institution; and residents of a medical institution not certified as a Medicaid provider. Although not by the same subsection, Congress also chose to exclude from SSI eligibility persons afflicted with alcoholism or drug addiction and not undergoing treatment, § 1611 (e) (3) (A), and persons who spend more than a specified time outside the United States, § 1611 (f). See Califano v. Asnavorian, 439 U. S. 170 (1978) (upholding constitutionality of § 1611 (f)) ; Califano v. Tones, 435 U. S. 1 (1978) (upholding constitutionality of Congress’ exclusion from SSI eligibility of residents of Puerto Rico). Thus, in § 1611 (e), Congress made a distinction not between the mentally ill and a group composed of.nonmentally ill, but between residents in public institutions receiving Medicaid funds for their care and residents in such institutions not receiving Medicaid funds.
To the extent that the statute has an indirect impact upon the mentally ill as a subset of publicly institutionalized persons, this record certainly presents no statistical support for a contention that the mentally ill as a class are burdened disproportionately to any other class affected by the classification. The exclusion draws a line only between groups composed (in part) of mentally ill individuals: those in public mental hospitals and those not in public mental hospitals. These groups are shifting in population, and members of one group can, and often do, pass to the other group.
We also note that appellees have failed to produce any evidence that the intent of Congress was to classify on the basis of mental health. Appellees admit that no such evidence exists; indeed, they rely on the absence of explicit intent as proof of Congress’ “inattention” to their needs and, therefore, its prejudice against them. Brief for Appellees 39. As in Jefferson v. Hackney, 406 U. S. 635 (1972), the indirect deprivation worked by this legislation upon appellees’ class, whether or not the class is considered “suspect,” does not without more move us to regard it with a heightened scrutiny. Cf. Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U. S. 256 (1979).
B
Thus, the pertinent inquiry is whether the classification employed in § 1611 (e)(1)(B) advances legitimate legislative goals in a rational fashion. The Court has said that, although this rational-basis standard is “not a toothless one,” Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U. S. 495, 510 (1976), it does not allow us to substitute our personal notions of good public policy for those of Congress:
“In the area of economics and social welfare, a State does not violate the Equal Protection Clause [and correspondingly the Federal Government does not violate the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment] merely because the classifications made by its laws are imperfect. If the classification has some ‘reasonable basis,’ it does not offend the Constitution simply because the classification ‘is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequity.’ Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U. S. 61, 78.” Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S., at 485.
The Court also has said: “This inquiry employs a relatively relaxed standard reflecting the Court’s awareness that the drawing of lines that create distinctions is peculiarly a legislative task and an unavoidable one. Perfection in making the necessary classifications is neither possible nor necessary.” Massachusetts Bd. of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U. S. 307, 314 (1976). See also United States Railroad Retirement Bd. v. Fritz, 449 U. S. 166 (1980). As long as the classificatory scheme chosen by Congress rationally advances a reasonable and identifiable governmental objective, we must disregard the existence of other methods of allocation that we, as individuals, perhaps would have preferred.
We believe that the decision to incorporate the Medicaid eligibility standards into the SSI scheme must be considered Congress’ deliberate, considered choice. The legislative record, although sparse, appears to be unequivocal. Both House and Senate Reports on the initial SSI bill noted the exclusion in no uncertain terms. The House Report stated:
“People who are residents of certain public institutions, or hospitals or nursing homes which are getting Medicaid funds, would get benefits of up to $25 a month (reduced by nonexcluded income). For these people most subsistence needs are met by the institution and full benefits are not needed. Some payment to these people, though, would be needed to enable them to purchase small comfort items not supplied by the institution. No assistance benefits will be paid to an individual in a penal institution.” H. R. Rep. No. 92-231, p. 150 (1971).
The Senate Report followed the House’s language almost identically. See S. Rep. No. 92-1230, p. 386 (1972). We find these passages, at the very least, to be a clear expression of Congress’ understanding that the stipend grant was to be limited to a group smaller than the total population of otherwise eligible, institutionalized people. That the bill’s section-by-section analysis contained in the House Report laid out the terms of the exclusion precisely supports the conclusion that Congress was aware of who was included in that limited group. See H. R. Rep. No. 92-231, at 334.
The limited nature of Medicaid eligibility did not pass unnoticed by the enacting Congress. In the same bill that established the SSI program, Congress considered, and passed, an amendment to Medicaid, providing coverage of inpatient services to a large number of the juvenile needy in public mental institutions. See § 1905 (h) of the Act, 42 U. S. C. § 1396d (h); S. Rep. No. 92-1230, at 280-281; H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 92-1605, p. 65 (1972). Also, a Senate proposal for demonstration projects on the feasibility of extending Medicaid to cover all inpatient services provided in public mental institutions was simultaneously defeated. See S. Rep. No. 92-1230, at 281; H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 92-1605, at 65. Congress was in the process of considering the wisdom of these limitations at the time it chose to incorporate them into the SSI provisions. The decision to do so did not escape controversy. The Committee hearings contained testimony advocating extension of both Medicaid and SSI benefits to all needy residents in public mental institutions. See Social Security Amendments of 1971, Hearings on H. R. 1 before the Senate Committee on Finance, 92d Cong., 1st and 2d Sess., 2180, 2408-2410, 2479-2485, 3257, 3319 (1972). This legislative history shows that Congress was aware, when it added § 1611 (e) to the Act, of the limitations in the Medicaid program that would restrict eligibility for the reduced SSI benefits; we decline to regard such deliberate action as the result of inadvertence or ignorance. See Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U. S. 1, 8 (1980).
Having found the adoption of the Medicaid standards intentional, we deem it logical to infer from Congress’ deliberate action an intent to further the same subsidiary purpose that lies behind the Medicaid exclusion, which, as no party denies, was adopted because Congress believed the States to have a “traditional” responsibility to care for those institutionalized in public mental institutions. The Secretary, emphasizing the then-existing congressional desire to economize in the disbursement of federal funds, argues that the decision to limit distribution of the monthly stipend to inmates of public institutions who are receiving Medicaid funds “is rationally related to the legitimate legislative desire to avoid spending federal resources on behalf of individuals whose care and treatment are being fully provided for by state and local government units” and “may be said to implement a congressional policy choice to provide supplemental financial assistance for only those residents of public institutions who already receive significant federal support in the form of Medicaid coverage.” Brief for Appellant 27-28. We cannot say that the belief that the States should continue to have the primary responsibility for making this small “comfort money” allowance available to those residing in state-run institutions is an irrational basis for withholding from them federal general welfare funds.
Although we understand and are inclined to be sympathetic with appellees’ and their supporting amici’s assertions as to the beneficial effects of a patient’s receiving the reduced stipend, we find this a legislative, and not a legal, argument. Congress rationally may elect to shoulder only part of the burden of supplying this allowance, and may rationally limit the grant to Medicaid recipients, for whose care the Federal Government already has assumed the major portion of the expense. The limited gratuity represents a partial solution to a far more general problem, and Congress legitimately may assume that the States would, or should, provide an equivalent, either in funds or in basic care. See Baur v. Mathews, 578 F. 2d 228, 233 (CA9 1978). This Court has granted a “strong presumption of constitutionality” to legislation conferring monetary benefits, Mathews v. De Castro, 429 U. S., at 185, because it believes that Congress should have discretion in deciding how to expend necessarily limited resources. Awarding this type of benefits inevitably involves the kind of line-drawing that will leave some comparably needy person outside the favored circle. We cannot say that it was irrational of Congress, in view of budgetary constraints, to decide that it is the Medicaid recipients in public institutions that are the most needy and the most deserving of the small monthly supplement. See, e. g., Califano v. Boles, 443 U. S. 282, 296 (1979); Califano v. Jobst, 434 U. S. 47, 53 (1977); Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U. S. 749, 768-770 (1975); Richardson v. Belcher, 404 U. S. 78, 83-84 (1971).
We conclude that Congress did not violate appellees’ rights to equal protection by denying them the supplementary benefit. The judgment of the District Court is reversed.
It is so ordered.
The SSI program, Title XYI of the Social Security Act, largely replaced the prior system of federal grants to state-run assistance programs for the aged, blind, and disabled contained in Titles I, X, XIV, and XVI of the Act, that is, Old Age Assistance, 49 Stat. 620, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §301 et seq.; Aid to the Blind, 49 Stat. 645, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1201 et seq.; Aid to the Permanently and Totally Disabled, 64 Stat. 555, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1351 et seq.; and Aid to the Aged, Blind, or Disabled, 76 Stat. 197, 42 U. S. C. § 1381 et seq. (1970 ed.). See Califano v. Aznavorian, 439 U. S. 170, 171 (1978); Califano v. Torres, 435 U. S. 1, 2 (1978).
To be eligible for SSI benefits, a person must be “aged,” that is, 65 or older, or “blind,” or “disabled,” as those terms are defined in § 1614 of the Act, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1382c, and his income and resources must be below the levels specified in § 1611 (a), as amended, 42 U. S. C. §1382 (a).
Section 1611 (e)(1)(A), as amended, provides:
“(e) Limitation on eligibility of certain individuals
“(1) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B) and (C), no person shall be an eligible individual or eligible spouse for purposes of this sub-chapter with respect to any month if throughout such month he is an inmate of a public institution.”
Section 1611 (e)(1)(B), as amended, modifying §1611 (e)(1)(A), as amended, states:
“(B) In any case where an eligible individual or his eligible spouse (if any) is, throughout any month, in a hospital, extended care facility, nursing home, or intermediate care facility receiving payments (with respect to such individual or spouse) under a State plan approved under title XIX, the benefit under this title for such individual for such month shall be payable—
“(i) at a rate not in excess of $300 per year (reduced by the amount of any income not excluded pursuant to section 1612 (b)) in the case of an individual who does not have an eligible spouse;
“(ii) in the case of an individual who has an eligible spouse, if only one of them is in such a hospital, home or facility throughout such month, at a rate not in excess of the sum of—
“(I) the rate of $300 per year (reduced by the amount of any income, not excluded pursuant to section 1612 (b), of the one who is in such hospital, home, or facility), and
“(II) the applicable rate specified in subsection (b)(1) (reduced by the amount of any income, not excluded pursuant to section 1612 (b), of the other); and
“(iii) at a rate not in excess of $600 per year (reduced by the amount of any income not excluded pursuant to section 1612 (b)) in the case of an individual who has an eligible spouse, if both of them are in such a hospital, home, or facility throughout such month.”
Subsection (C) of §1611 (e)(1), not implicated in this case, further modifies §1611 (e)(1)(A), as amended, by providing:
“(C) As used in subparagraph (A), the term ‘public institution’ does not include a publicly operated community residence which serves no more than 16 residents.”
Added in 1976 by Pub. L. 94-566, § 505 (a), 90 Stat. 2686, this subsection met objections that § 1611 (e) impeded reform efforts to de-institu-tionalize certain groups of handicapped individuals, such as the mentally retarded. Congress determined to encourage the establishment of state-run group homes for such people by making residents in these institutions eligible for SSI benefits. See S. Rep. No. 94-1265, p. 29 (1976); H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 94-1745, pp. 27-28 (1976).
Federal funds are available under the Medicaid program to pay for the following “residential” services: “inpatient hospital services (other than services in an institution for tuberculosis or mental diseases),” § 1905 (a)(1), 42 U. S. C. § 1396d (a) (1); “skilled nursing facility services (other than services in an institution for tuberculosis or mental diseases) for individuals 21 years of age or older,” § 1905 (a) (4) (A); “inpatient hospital services, skilled nursing facility services, and intermediate care facility services for individuals 65 years of age or over in an institution for tuberculosis or mental diseases,” § 1905 (a) (14); “intermediate care facility services (other than such services in an institution for tuberculosis or mental diseases) for individuals... in need of such care,” § 1905 (a) (15); certain “inpatient psychiatric hospital services for individuals under age 21,” §§ 1905 (a) (16) and (h). Subsection (17) (B) of §1905 (a), which provides for funding of any other medical or remedial care recognized under state law, specifically excludes “payments with respect to care or services for any individual who has not attained 65 years of age and who is a patient in an institution for tuberculosis or mental diseases.”
In 1950, when it first enacted federal grants for medical assistance, Congress excluded “any individual... who is a patient in an institution for... mental diseases” from eligibility. 64 Stat 558. This exclusion was incorporated into the Medicaid statute in 1965, 79 Stat. 352, but exceptions were made for the needy aged in mental institutions, and for the care of mentally ill persons in general medical facilities. Ibid. In 1972, in the bill enacting the SSI program, Congress further broadened Medicaid benefits for the mentally ill to include most children in mental institutions. 86 Stat. 1461. A Senate proposal for demonstration projects to investigate the possibility of extending Medicaid benefits to the mentally ill between the ages of 21 through 64 in mental hospitals was defeated at that time. See S. Rep. No. 92-1230, p. 281 (1972); H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 92-1605, p. 65 (1972).
This Court repeatedly has held that the Fifth Amendment imposes on the Federal Government the same standard required of state legislation by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e. g., Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U. S. 749, 768-770 (1975); Richardson v. Belcher, 404 U. S. 78, 81 (1971).
The three-judge court also found that the state statute classified on the basis of age, not mental health, and that it was rational and constitutional. The Court of Appeals declined to review that constitutional holding on the ground that review from the three-judge court could be had only in this Court. Wilson v. Edelman, 542 F. 2d, at 1276-1282.
The Court of Appeals also held that only two of the named plaintiffs, Maudie Simmons and John Kiernan Turney, had satisfied the minimum, nonwaivable requirement of 42 U. S. C. § 405 (g) that a party may seek review only of a “final decision of the Secretary” denying, terminating, or suspending benefits under the SSI program. The other named plaintiffs, including Charles Wilson, were eligible for, or had sought and been denied, benefits only under the prior cooperative state-federal programs, and therefore they were dismissed as parties. We have retained Wilson as a named party in the caption of this case, however, as did the District Court on remand, for the sake of uniformity.
The class was defined as “all persons residing in HEW Region V who have been terminated from benefits under Title XVI, or who have applied for Supplemental Security Income benefits under Title XVI and have been denied such benefits, on or after January 1, 1974, solely because they are between the ages of 21 and 65 and hospitalized in a public mental institution.” App. to Juris. Statement 21a.
The District Court denied, however, the claim of the pretrial detainees to the monthly stipend, applying a “rational relation” standard and finding the exclusion rational because “[t]he detainee status is necessarily temporary in nature, and the [Secretary] could legitimately wish to withhold these extra-subsistence payments while the detainee is housed in a public institution and until his future status is determined.” 478 F. Supp., at 1055.
The District Court noted that a person’s mental health problem, especially one that has led to institutionalization, is likely to ‘"bear [a] relation to ability to perform or contribute to society.’ ” Id., at 1051-1052, quoting Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U. S. 677, 686 (1973). The court also acknowledged that “[i]t is debatable whether and to what extent the mental illness is an ‘immutable characteristic determined solely by the accident of birth.’” 478 F. Supp., at 1052, again quoting Frontiero, 411 U. S., at 686.
The Secretary argued that the statutory exclusion has three purposes: “1) the conservation of federal resources; 2) the concern that federal funds be received on behalf of residents of qualified institutions; and 3) the fact that plaintiffs are not ‘similarly situated’ with Medicaid patients in terms of federal interest and control.” 478 F. Supp., at 1053.
We therefore intimate no view as to what standard of review applies to legislation expressly classifying the mentally ill as a discrete group.
Social Security Administration statistics show that 30.7% of all blind and disabled adult persons awarded SSI benefits in 1975 (109,509 persons) were deemed disabled by mental disorders, and the Administration has concluded that “[m]ental illness was the most common cause of disability in 1975.” Kochhar, Blind and Disabled Persons Awarded Federally Administered SSI Payments, 1975, Social Security Bulletin 13, 15 (June 1979). Half of this number suffered from mental illness rather than mental retardation, and these statistics did not include any persons with prior entitlement to benefits. Ibid.
Further, as a recent study also indicates, a substantial number of mentally ill people in institutions actually receive SSI benefits. Social Security Administration, Representative Payments under the SSI Program, August 1977, Research and Statistics Note No. 9 (Sept.. 16, 1980). This study established that 15% of the total population receiving SSI benefits (for all reasons, including age, blindness, and disability) had “representative payees” (a person “appointed to manage the benefits of an adult beneficiary” because of “the adult beneficiary’s inability to manage his own funds”). Id., at 1. Out of a total of 184,133 institutionalized persons who were receiving SSI benefits in August 1977 through such “representative payees,” 76,494, or approximately 41%, were institutionalized because of mental disorders. Id., at 7 (Table 6) and 2 (Table 1). Thus, even on this incomplete data, a sizable number of SSI recipients were persons institutionalized for mental illness.
Appellees appear to concede the rationality of Congress’ general exclusion of publicly institutionalized persons from full SSI benefits.
An otherwise eligible person does not receive SSI benefits if he is receiving long-term treatment in a medical facility that is not certified under Medicaid standards as a provider. See § 1861 of the Act, 42 U. S. C. § 1395x. These strict standards exclude many facilities but work to the ultimate benefit of those receiving Medicaid Cf. O’Bannon v. Town Court Nursing Center, 447 U. S. 773 (1980).
The average inpatient stay in public mental hospitals is short. Recently collected data for 1975 reveal a median stay in state and county mental hospitals of only 25.5 days. Witkin, Characteristics of Admissions to Selected Mental Health Facilities, 1975: An Annotated Book of Charts and Tables, National Institute of Mental Health 93, DHHS Publication No. (ADM) 80-1005 (1981). This study also showed that young and elderly patients had longer periods of stay than patients in the middle-age group. Id.., at 95. The rapidity with which inpatients are released from public institutions has increased since the 1950’s. In 1971 75% of all patients admitted to state mental hospitals were released within the first three months, while 87% were released within the first six months. Ozarin, Redick, & Taube, A Quarter Century of Psychiatric Care, 1950-1974: A Statistical Review, 27 Hospital & Community Psychiatry 515, 516 (1976). Data from the National Institute of Mental Health show that the proportion of “patient care episodes” (admissions during a year plus residents at the beginning of the year) attributable to inpatient treatment at state and county hospitals declined from 49% in 1955 to 9% in 1977. This dramatic
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Burgee
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellant, owner of real estate in Richmond County, New York, sought an injunction in the New York courts to prevent the New York City Tax Commission from granting property tax exemptions to religious organizations for religious properties used solely for religious worship. The exemption from state taxes is authorized by Art. 16, § 1, of the New York Constitution, which provides in relevant part:
“Exemptions from taxation may be granted only by general laws. Exemptions may be altered or repealed except those exempting real or personal property used exclusively for religious, educational or charitable purposes as defined by law and owned by any corporation or association organized or conducted exclusively for one or more of such purposes and not operating for profit.”
The essence of appellant’s contention was that the New York City Tax Commission’s grant of an exemption to church property indirectly requires the appellant to make a contribution to religious bodies and thereby violates provisions prohibiting establishment of religion under the First Amendment which under the Fourteenth Amendment is binding on the States.
Appellee’s motion for summary judgment was granted and the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, and the New York Court of Appeals affirmed. We noted probable jurisdiction, 395 U. S. 957 (1969), and affirm.
I
Prior opinions of this Court have discussed the development and historical background of the First Amendment in detail. See Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U. S. 1 (1947); Engel v. Vitale, 370 U. S. 421 (1962). It would therefore serve no useful purpose to review in detail the background of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment or to restate what the Court’s opinions have reflected over the years.
It is sufficient to note that for the men who wrote the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment the “establishment” of a religion connoted sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity. In England, and in some Colonies at the time of the separation in 1776, the Church of England was sponsored and supported by the Crown as a state, or established, church; in other countries “establishment” meant sponsorship by the sovereign of the Lutheran or Catholic Church. See Engel v. Vitale, 370 U. S., at 428 n. 10. See generally C. Antieau, A. Downey, & E. Roberts, Freedom from Federal Establishment (1964). The exclusivity of established churches in the 17th and 18th centuries, of course, was often carried to prohibition of other forms of worship. See Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U. S., at 9-11; L. Pfeifer, Church, State and Freedom 71 et seg. (1967).
The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment are not the most precisely drawn portions of the Constitution. The'sweep of the absolute prohibitions in the Religion Clauses may have been calculated; but the purpose was to state an objective, not to write a statute. In attempting to articulate the scope of the two Religion Clauses, the Court’s opinions reflect the limitations inherent in formulating general principles on a case-by-case basis. The considerable internal inconsistency in the opinions of the Court derives from what, in retrospect, may have been too sweeping utterances on aspects of these clauses that seemed clear in relation to the particular cases but have limited meaning as general principles.
The Court has struggled to find a neutral course between the two Religion Clauses, both of which are cast in absolute terms, and either of which, if expanded to a logical extreme, would tend to clash with the other. For example, in Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U. S. 306 (1952), Mr. Justice Douglas, writing for the Court, noted:
“The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation .of Church and State.” Id., at 312.
“We sponsor an attitude on the part of government that shows no partiality to any one group and that lets each flourish according to the zeal of its adherents and the appeal of its dogma.” Id., at 313.
Mr. Justice Harlan expressed something of this in his dissent in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U. S. 398 (1963), saying that the constitutional neutrality imposed on us
“is not so narrow a channel that the slightest deviation from an absolutely straight course leads to condemnation.” Id., at 422.
The course of constitutional neutrality in this area cannot be an absolutely straight line; rigidity could well defeat the basic purpose of these provisions, which is to insure that no religion be sponsored or favored, none commanded, and none inhibited. The general principle deducible from the First Amendment and all that has been said by the Court is this: that we will not tolerate either governmentally established religion or governmental interference with religion. Short of those expressly proscribed governmental acts there is room for play in the joints productive of a benevolent neutrality which will permit religious exercise to exist without sponsorship and without interference.
Each valúe judgment under the Religion Clauses must therefore turn on whether particular acts in question are intended to establish or interfere with religious beliefs and practices or have the effect of doing so. Adherence to the policy of neutrality that derives from an accommodation of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses has prevented the kind of involvement that would tip the balance toward government control of churches or governmental restraint on religious practice.
Adherents of particular faiths and individual churches frequently take strong positions on public issues including, as this case reveals in the several briefs amid, vigorous advocacy of legal or constitutional positions. Of course, churches as much as secular bodies and private citizens have that right. No perfect or absolute separation is really possible; the very existence of the Religion Clauses is an involvement of sorts — one that seeks to mark boundaries to avoid excessive entanglement.
The hazards of placing too much weight on a few words or phrases of the Court is abundantly illustrated within the pages of the Court's opinion in Everson. Mr. Justice Black, writing for the Court’s majority, said the First Amendment
“means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can . . . pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.” 330 U. S., at 15.
Yet he had no difficulty in holding that:
“Measured by these standards, we cannot say that the First Amendment prohibits New Jersey from spending tax-raised funds to pay the bus fares of parochial school pupils as a part of a general program under which it pays the fares of pupils attending public and other schools. It is undoubtedly true that children are helped to get to church schools. There is even a possibility that some of the children might not be sent to the church schools if the parents were compelled to pay their children’s bus fares out of their own pockets . . . .” Id., at 17. (Emphasis added.)
The Court did not regard such “aid” to schools teaching a particular religious faith as any more a violation of the Establishment Clause than providing ‘‘state-paid policemen, detailed to protect children ... [at the schools] from the very real hazards of traffic . . . .” Ibid.
Mr. Justice Jackson, in perplexed dissent in Everson, noted that
“the undertones of the opinion, advocating complete and uncompromising separation . . . seem utterly discordant with its conclusion . . . .” Id., at 19.
Perhaps so. One can sympathize with Mr. Justice Jackson’s logical analysis but agree with the Court’s eminently sensible and realistic application of the language of the Establishment Clause. In Everson the Court declined to construe the Religion Clauses with a literalness that would undermine the ultimate constitutional objective as illuminated by history. Surely, bus transportation and police protection to pupils who receive religious instruction “aid” that particular religion to maintain schools that plainly tend to assure future adherents to a particular faith by having control of their total education at an early age. No religious body that maintains schools would deny this as an affirmative if not dominant policy of church schools. But if as in Everson buses can be provided -to carry and policemen to protect church school pupils, we fail to see how a broader range of police and fire protection given equally to all churches, along with nonprofit hospitals, art galleries, and libraries receiving the same tax exemption, is different for purposes of the Religion Clauses.
Similarly, making textbooks available to pupils in parochial schools in common with public schools was surely an “aid” to the sponsoring churches because it relieved those churches of an enormous aggregate cost for those books. Supplying of costly teaching materials was not seen either as manifesting a legislative purpose to aid or as having a primary effect of aid contravening the First Amendment. Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U. S. 236 (1968). In so holding the Court was heeding both its own prior decisions and our religious tradition. Mr. Justice Douglas, in Zorach v. Clauson, supra, after recalling that we “are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being,” went on to say:
“We make room for as wide a variety of beliefs and creeds as the spiritual needs of man deem necessary. . . . When the state encourages religious instruction ... it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs.” 343 U. S., at 313-314. (Emphasis added.)
With all the risks inherent in programs that bring about administrative relationships between public education bodies and church-sponsored schools, we have been able to chart a course that preserved the autonomy and freedom of religious bodies while avoiding any semblance of established religion. This is a “tight rope” and one we have successfully traversed.
II
The legislative purpose of the property tax exemption is neither the advancement nor the inhibition of religion; it is neither sponsorship nor hostility. New York, in common with the other States, has determined that certain entities that exist in a harmonious relationship to the community at large, and that foster its “moral or mental improvement,” should not be inhibited in their activities by property taxation or the hazard of loss of those properties for nonpayment of taxes. It has not singled out one particular church or religious group or even churches as such; rather, it has granted exemption to all houses of religious worship within a broad class of property owned by nonprofit, quasi-public corporations which include hospitals, libraries, playgrounds, scientific, professional, historical, and patriotic groups. The State has an affirmative policy that considers these groups as beneficial .and stabilizing influences in community life and finds this classification useful, desirable, and in the public interest. Qualification for tax exemption is not perpetual or immutable; some tax-exempt groups lose that status when their activities take them outside the classification and new entities can come into being and qualify for exemption.
Governments have not always been tolerant of religious activity, and hostility toward religion has taken many shapes and forms — economic, political, and sometimes harshly oppressive. Grants of exemption historically reflect the concern of authors of constitutions and statutes as to the latent dangers inherent in the imposition of property taxes; exemption constitutes a reasonable and balanced attempt to guard against those dangers. The limits of permissible state accommodation to religion are by no means co-extensive with the noninterference mandated by the Free Exercise Clause. To equate the two would be to deny a national heritage with roots in the Revolution itself. See Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U. S. 398, 423 (1963) (Hablan, J., dissenting); Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U. S. 599, 608 (1961). See generally Kauper, The Constitutionality of Tax Exemptions for Religious Activities in The Wall Between Church and State 95 (D. Oaks ed. 1963). We cannot read New York's statute as attempting to establish religion; it is simply sparing the exercise of religion from the burden of property taxation levied on private profit institutions.
We find it unnecessary to justify the tax exemption on the social welfare services or “good works” that some churches perform for parishioners and others — family counselling, aid to the elderly and the infirm, and to children. Churches vary substantially in the scope of such services; programs expand or contract according to resources and need. As public-sponsored programs enlarge, private aid from the church sector may diminish. The extent of social services may vary, depending on whether the church serves an urban or rural, a rich or poor constituency. To give emphasis to so variable an aspect of the work of religious bodies would introduce an element of governmental evaluation and standards as to the worth of particular social welfare programs, thus producing a kind of continuing day-to-day relationship which the policy of neutrality seeks to minimize. Hence, the use of a social welfare yardstick as a significant element to qualify for tax exemption could conceivably give rise to confrontations that could escalate to constitutional dimensions.
Determining that the legislative purpose of tax exemp-tion is not aimed at establishing, sponsoring, or supporting religion does not end the inquiry, however. We must also be sure that the end result — the effect — is not an excessive government entanglement with religion. The test is inescapably one of degree. Either course, taxation of churches or exemption, occasions some degree of involvement with, religion. Elimination of exemption would tend to expand the involvement of government by giving rise to tax valuation of church property, tax liens, tax foreclosures, and the direct confrontations and conflicts that follow in the train of those legal processes.
Granting tax exemptions to churches necessarily operates to afford an indirect economic benefit and also gives rise to some, but yet a lesser, involvement than taxing them. In analyzing either alternative the questions are whether the involvement is excessive, and whether it is a continuing one calling for official and continuing surveillance leading to an impermissible degree of entanglement. Obviously a direct money subsidy would be a relationship pregnant with involvement and, as with most governmental grant programs, could encompass sustained and detailed administrative relationships for enforcement of statutory or administrative standards, but that is not this case. The hazards of churches supporting government are hardly less in their potential than the hazards of government supporting churches; each relationship carries some involvement rather than the desired insulation and separation. We cannot ignore the instances in history when church support of government led to the kind of involvement we seek to avoid.
The grant of a tax exemption is not sponsorship since the government does not transfer part of its revenue to churches but simply abstains from demanding that the church support the state. No one has ever suggested that tax exemption has converted libraries, art galleries, or hospitals into arms of the state or put employees “on the public payroll.” There is no genuine nexus between tax exemption and establishment of religion. As Mr. Justice Holmes commented in a related context “a page of history is worth a volume of logic.” New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U. S. 345, 349 (1921). The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state and far less than taxation of churches. It restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other.
Separation in this context cannot mean absence of all contact; the complexities of modern life inevitably produce some contact and the fire and police protection received by houses of religious worship are no more than incidental benefits accorded all persons or institutions within a State’s boundaries, along with many other exempt organizations. The appellant has not established even an arguable quantitative correlation between the payment of an ad valorem property tax and the receipt of these municipal benefits.
All of the 50 States provide for tax exemption of places of worship, most of them doing so by constitutional guarantees. For so long as federal income taxes have had any potential impact on churches — over 75 years— religious organizations have been expressly exempt from the tax. Such treatment is an “aid” to churches no 'more and no less in principle than the real estate tax exemption granted by States. Few concepts are more deeply embedded in the fabric of our national life, beginning with pre-Revolutionary colonial times, than for the government to exercise at the very least this kind of benevolent neutrality toward churches and religious exercise generally so long as none was favored over others and none suffered interference.
It is significant that Congress, from its earliest days, has viewed the Religion Clauses of the Constitution as authorizing statutory real estate tax exemption to religious bodies. In 1802 the 7th Congress enacted a taxing statute for the County of Alexandria, adopting the 1800 Virginia statutory pattern which provided tax exemptions for churches. 2 Stat. 194. As early as 1813 the 12th Congress refunded import duties paid by religious societies on the importation of religious articles. During this period the City Council of Washington, D. C., acting under congressional authority, Act of Incorporation, § 7, 2 Stat. 197 (May 3, 1802), enacted a series of real and personal property assessments that uniformly exempted church property. In 1870 the Congress specifically exempted all churches in the District of Columbia and appurtenant grounds and property “from any and all taxes or assessments, national, municipal, or county.” Act of June 17, 1870, 16 Stat. 153.
It is obviously correct that no one acquires a vested or protected right in violation of the Constitution by long use, even when that span of time covers our entire national existence and indeed predates it. Yet an unbroken practice of according the exemption to churches, openly and by affirmative state action, not covertly or by state inaction, is not something to be lightly cast aside. Nearly 50 years ago Mr. Justice Holmes stated:
“If a thing has been practised for two hundred years by common consent, it will need a strong case for the Fourteenth Amendment to affect it. . . .” Jackman v. Rosenbaum Co., 260 U. S. 22, 31 (1922).
Nothing in this national attitude toward religious tolerance and two centuries of uninterrupted freedom from taxation has given the remotest sign of leading to an established church or religion and on the contrary it has operated affirmatively to help guarantee the free exercise of all forms of religious belief. Thus, it is hardly useful to suggest that tax exemption is but the “foot in the door” or the “nose of the camel in the tent” leading to an established church. If tax exemption can be seen as this first step toward “establishment” of religion, as Mb. Justice Douglas fears, the second step has been long in coming. Any move that realistically “establishes” a church or tends to do so can be dealt with “while this Court sits.”
Mr. Justice Cardozo commented in The Nature of the Judicial Process 51 (1921) on the “tendency of a principle to expand itself to the limit of its logic”; such expansion must always be contained by the historical frame of reference of the principle’s purpose and there is no lack of vigilance on this score by those who fear religious entanglement in government.
The argument that making “fine distinctions” between what is and what is not absolute under the Constitution is to render us a government of men, not laws, gives too little weight to the fact that it is an essential part of adjudication to draw distinctions, including fine ones, in the process of interpreting the Constitution. We must frequently decide, for example, what are “reasonable” searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment. Determining what acts of government tend to establish or interfere with religion falls well within what courts have long been called upon to do in sensitive areas.
It is interesting to note that while the precise question we now decide has not been directly before the Court previously, the broad question was discussed by the Court in relation to real estate taxes assessed nearly a century ago on land owned by and adjacent to a church in Washington, D. C. At that time Congress granted real estate tax exemptions to buildings devoted to art, to institutions of public charity, libraries, cemeteries, and “church buildings, and grounds actually occupied by such buildings.” In denying tax exemption as to land owned by but not used for the church, but rather to produce income, the Court concluded;
“In the exercise of this [taxing] power, Congress, like any State legislature unrestricted by constitutional provisions, may at its discretion wholly exempt certain classes of property from taxation, or ■ may tax them at a lower rate than other property.” Gibbons v. District of Columbia, 116 U. S. 404, 408 (1886).
It appears that at least up to 1885 this Court, reflecting more than a century of our history and uninterrupted practice, accepted without discussion the proposition that federal or state grants of tax exemption to churches were not a violation of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment. As to the New York statute, we now confirm that view.
Affirmed.
Art. 16, § 1, of the New York State Constitution is implemented by § 420, subd. 1, of the New York Real Property Tax Law which states in pertinent part:
“Real property owned by a corporation or association organized exclusively for the moral or mental improvement of men and women, or for religious, bible, tract, charitable, benevolent, missionary, hospital, infirmary, educational, public playground, scientific, literary, bar association, medical society, library, patriotic, historical or cemetery purposes . . . and used exclusively for carrying out thereupon one or more of such purposes . . . shall be exempt from taxation as provided in this section.”
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in part that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . .”
The support of religion with direct allocation of public revenue was a common colonial practice. See C. Antieau, A. Downey, & E. Roberts, Freedom from Federal Establishment cc. 1 and 2 (1964). A general assessment proposed in the Virginia Legislature in 1784 prompted the writing of James Madison’s Remonstrance. See opinion of Mr. Justice Douglas dissenting, post, at 70A-706; 716-727. Governmental support of religion is common in many countries. See e. g., R. Murray, A Brief History of the Church of Sweden 75 (1961); G. Codding, The Federal Government of Switzerland 53-54 (1961); M. Scehic, Zbirka Propisa o Doprinosima i Porezima Gra-djana 357 (Yugoslavia) (1968).
Act of August 27, 1894, §32, 28 Stat. 556. Following passage of the Sixteenth Amendment, federal income tax acts have consistently exempted corporations and associations, organized and operated exclusively for religious purposes along with eleemosynary groups, from payment of the tax. Act of Oct. 3, 1913, § IIG (a), 38 Stat. 172. See Int. Rev. Code of 1954, § 501 et seq., 26 U. S. C. § 501 et seq.
In 1798 Congress passed an Act to provide for the valuation of lands and dwelling houses. All existing state exemptions were expressly excluded from the aforesaid valuation and enumeration. Act of July 9, 1798, § 8, 1 Stat. 585. Subsequent levies of direct taxes expressly or impliedly incorporated existing state exemptions. Act of July 14, 1798, § 2, 1 Stat. 598 (express incorporation of state exemption). See Act of Aug. 2, 1813, § 4, 3 Stat. 71; Act of Jan. 9, 1815, § 5, 3 Stat. 166 (express incorporation of state exemptions). 6
See 6 Stat. 116 (1813), relating to plates for printing Bibles. See also 6 Stat. 346 (1826) relating to church vestments, furniture, and paintings; 6 Stat. 162 (1816), Bible plates; 6 Stat. 600 (1834), and 6 Stat. 675 (1836), church bells.
See, e. g., Acts of the Corporation of the City of Washington, First Council, c. V, approved Oct. 6, 1802, p. 13; Acts of the Corporation of the City of Washington, Second Council, § 1, approved Sept. 12, 1803, p. 13; Acts of the Corporation of the City of Washington, Third Council, § 1, approved Sept. 5, 1804, p. 13. Succeeding Acts of the Corporation impliedly renewed the exemption in subsequent assessments. See, e. g., Acts of the Corporation of the City of Washington, Thirteenth Council, e. 19', §2, approved July 27,1815, p. 24.
Subsequent Acts of Congress carried over the substance of the exemption. Act of July 12, 1876, § 8, 19 Stat. 85; Act of March 3, 1877, § 8, 19 Stat. 399; Act of August 15, 1916, 39 Stat. 514; D. C. Code Ann. §47-801a (1967).
Gibbons v. District of Columbia, 116 U. S. 404 (1886). Cf. Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U. S. App. D. C. 371, 249 F. 2d 127 (1957).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case, we consider the showing necessary for a defendant to be entitled to discovery on a claim that the prosecuting attorney singled him out for prosecution on the basis of his race. We conclude that respondents failed to satisfy the threshold showing: They failed to show that the Government declined to prosecute similarly situated suspects of other races.
In April 1992, respondents were indicted in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on charges of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base (crack) and conspiring to distribute the same, in violation of 21 U. S. C. §§841 and 846 (1988 ed. and Supp. IV), and federal firearms offenses. For three months prior to the indictment, agents of the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and the Narcotics Division of the Inglewood, California, Police Department had infiltrated a suspected crack distribution ring by using three confidential informants. On seven separate occasions during this period, the informants had bought a total of 124.3 grams of crack from respondents and witnessed respondents carrying firearms during the sales. ■ The agents searched the hotel room in which the sales were transacted, arrested respondents Armstrong and Hampton in the room, and found more crack and a loaded gun. The agents later arrested the other respondents as part of the ring.
In response to the indictment, respondents filed a motion for discovery or for dismissal of the indictment, alleging that they were selected for federal prosecution because they are black. In support of their motion, they offered only an affidavit by a “Paralegal Specialist,” employed by the Office of the Federal Public Defender representing one of the respondents. The only allegation in the affidavit was that, in every one of the 24 § 841 or § 846 cases closed by the office during 1991, the defendant was black. Accompanying the affidavit was a “study” listing the 24 defendants, their race, whether they were prosecuted for dealing cocaine as well as crack, and the status of each case.
The Government opposed the discovery motion, arguing, among other things, that there was no evidence or allegation “that the Government has acted unfairly or has prosecuted non-black defendants or failed to prosecute them.” App. 150. The District Court granted the motion. It ordered the Government (1) to provide a list of all cases from the last three years in which the Government charged both cocaine and firearms offenses, (2) to identify the race of the defendants in those cases, (3) to identify what levels of law enforcement were involved in the investigations of those cases, and (4) to explain its criteria for deciding to prosecute those defendants for federal cocaine offenses. Id., at 161-162.
The Government moved for reconsideration of the District Court’s discovery order. With this motion it submitted affidavits and other evidence to explain why it had chosen to prosecute respondents and why respondents’ study did not support the inference that the Government was singling out blacks for cocaine prosecution. The federal and local agents participating in the case alleged in affidavits that race played no role in their investigation. An Assistant United States Attorney explained in an affidavit that the decision to prosecute met the general criteria for prosecution, because
“there was over 100 grams of cocaine base involved, over twice the threshold necessary for a ten year mandatory minimum sentence; there were multiple sales involving multiple defendants, thereby indicating a fairly substantial crack cocaine ring; . . . there were multiple federal firearms violations intertwined with the narcotics trafficking; the overall evidence in the case was extremely strong, including audio and videotapes of defendants; ... and several of the defendants had criminal histories including narcotics and firearms violations.” Id., at 81.
The Government also submitted sections of a published 1989 Drug Enforcement Administration report which concluded that “[l]arge-scale, interstate trafficking networks controlled by Jamaicans, Haitians and Black street gangs dominate the manufacture and distribution of crack.” J. Featherly & E. Hill, Crack Cocaine Overview 1989; App. 103.
In response, one of respondents’ attorneys submitted an affidavit alleging that an intake coordinator at a drug treatment center had told her that there are “an equal number of Caucasian users and dealers to minority users and dealers.” Id., at 138. Respondents also submitted an affidavit from a criminal defense attorney alleging that in his experience many nonblacks are prosecuted in state court for crack offenses, id., at 141, and a newspaper article reporting that federal “crack criminals . . . are being punished far more severely than if they had been caught with powder cocaine, and almost every single one of them is black,” Newton, Harsher Crack Sentences Criticized as Racial Inequity, Los Angeles Times, Nov. 23, 1992, p. 1; App. 208-210.
The District Court denied the motion for reconsideration. When the Government indicated it would not comply with the court’s discovery order, the court dismissed the case.
A divided three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that, because of the proof requirements for a selective-prosecution claim, defendants must “provide a colorable basis for believing that ‘others similarly situated have not been prosecuted’ ” to obtain discovery. 21 F. 3d 1431, 1436 (1994) (quoting United States v. Wayte, 710 F. 2d 1385, 1387 (CA9 1983), aff’d, 470 U. S. 598 (1985)). The Court of Appeals voted to rehear the case en banc, and the en banc panel affirmed the District Court’s order of dismissal, holding that “a defendant is not required to demonstrate that the government has failed to prosecute others who are similarly situated.” 48 F. 3d 1508, 1516 (1995) (emphasis deleted). We granted certiorari to determine the appropriate standard for discovery for a selective-prosecution claim. 516 U. S. 942 (1995).
Neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals mentioned Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16, which by its terms governs discovery in criminal cases. Both parties now discuss the Rule in their briefs, and respondents contend that it supports the result reached by the Court of Appeals. Rule 16 provides, in pertinent part:
“Upon request of the defendant the government shall permit the defendant to inspect and copy or photograph books, papers, documents, photographs, tangible objects, buildings or places, or copies or portions thereof, which are within the possession, custody or control of the government, and which are material to the preparation of the defendant’s defense or are intended for use by the government as evidence in chief at the trial, or were obtained from or belong to the defendant.” Fed. Rule Grim. Proc. 16(a)(1)(C).
Respondents argue that documents “within the possession ... of the government” that discuss the Government’s prosecution strategy for cocaine cases are “material” to respondents’ selective-prosecution claim. Respondents argue that the Rule applies because any claim that “results in noncon-viction” if successful is a “defense” for the Rule’s purposes, and a successful selective-prosecution claim has that effect. Tr. of Oral Arg. 30.
We reject this argument, because we conclude that in the context of Rule 16 “the defendant’s defense” means the defendant’s response to the Government’s case in chief. While it might be argued that as a general matter, the concept of a “defense” includes any claim that is a “sword,” challenging the prosecution’s conduct of the case, the term may encompass only the narrower class of “shield” claims, which refute the Government’s arguments that the defendant committed the crime charged. Rule 16(a)(1)(C) tends to support the “shield-only” reading. If “defense” means an argument in response to the prosecution’s case in chief, there is a perceptible symmetry between documents “material to the preparation of the defendant’s defense,” and, in the very next phrase, documents “intended for use by the government as evidence in chief at the trial.”
If this symmetry were not persuasive enough, subdivision (a)(2) of Rule 16 establishes beyond peradventure that “defense” in subdivision (a)(1)(C) can refer only to defenses in response to the Government’s case in chief. Rule 16(a)(2), as relevant here, exempts from defense inspection “reports, memoranda, or other internal government documents made by the attorney for the government or other government agents in connection with the investigation or prosecution of the case.”
Under Rule 16(a)(1)(C), a defendant may examine documents material to his defense, but, under Rule 16(a)(2), he may not examine Government work product in connection with his case. If a selective-prosecution claim is a “defense,” Rule 16(a)(1)(C) gives the defendant the right to examine Government work product in every prosecution except his own. Because respondents’ construction of “defense” creates the anomaly of a defendant’s being able to examine all Government work product except the most pertinent, we find their construction implausible. We hold that Rule 16(a)(1)(C) authorizes defendants to examine Government documents material to the preparation of their defense against the Government’s case in chief, but not to the preparation of selective-prosecution claims.
In Wade v. United States, 504 U. S. 181 (1992), we considered whether a federal court may review a Government decision not to file a motion to reduce a defendant’s sentence for substantial assistance to the prosecution, to determine whether the Government based its decision on the defendant’s race or religion. In holding that such a decision was reviewable, we assumed that discovery would be available if the defendant could make the appropriate threshold showing, although we concluded that the defendant in that case did not make such a showing. See id., at 186. We proceed on a like assumption here.
A selective-prosecution claim is not a defense on the merits to the criminal charge itself, but an independent assertion that the prosecutor has brought the charge for reasons forbidden by the Constitution. Our cases delineating the necessary elements to prove a claim of selective prosecution have taken great pains to explain that the standard is a demanding one. These cases afford a “background presumption,” cf. United States v. Mezzanatto, 513 U. S. 196, 203 (1995), that the showing necessary to obtain discovery should itself be a significant barrier to the litigation of insubstantial claims.
A selective-prosecution claim asks a court to exercise judicial power over a “special province” of the Executive. Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U. S. 821, 832 (1985). The Attorney General and United States Attorneys retain “ ‘broad discretion’ ” to enforce the Nation’s criminal laws. Wayte v. United States, 470 U. S. 598, 607 (1985) (quoting United States v. Goodwin, 457 U. S. 368, 380, n. 11 (1982)). They have this latitude because they are designated by statute as the President’s delegates to help him discharge his constitutional responsibility to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” U. S. Const., Art. II, § 3; see 28 U. S. C. §§ 516, 547. As a result, “[t]he presumption of regularity supports” their prosecutorial decisions and, “in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts presume that they have properly discharged their official duties.” United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc., 272 U. S. 1, 14-15 (1926). In the ordinary case, “so long as the prosecutor has probable cause to believe that the accused committed an offense defined by statute, the decision whether or not to prosecute, and what charge to file or bring before a grand jury, generally rests entirely in his discretion.” Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U. S. 357, 364 (1978).
Of course, a prosecutor’s discretion is “subject to constitutional constraints.” United States v. Batchelder, 442 U. S. 114, 125 (1979). One of these constraints, imposed by the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U. S. 497, 500 (1954), is that the decision whether to prosecute may not be based on “an unjustifiable standard' such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification,” Oyler v. Boles, 368 U. S. 448, 456 (1962). A defendant may demonstrate that the administration of a criminal law is “directed so exclusively against a particular class of persons . . . with a mind so unequal and oppressive” that the system of prosecution amounts to “a practical denial” of equal protection of the law. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 373 (1886).
In order to dispel the presumption that a prosecutor has not violated equal protection, a criminal defendant must present “clear evidence to the contrary.” Chemical Foundation, supra, at 14-15. We explained in Wayte why courts are “properly hesitant to examine the decision whether to prosecute.” 470 U. S., at 608. Judicial deference to the decisions of these executive officers rests in part on an assessment of the relative competence of prosecutors and courts. “Such factors as the strength of the case, the prosecution’s general deterrence value, the Government’s enforcement priorities, and the case’s relationship to the Government’s overall enforcement plan are not readily susceptible to the kind of analysis the courts are competent to undertake.” Id., at 607. It also stems from a concern not to unnecessarily impair the performance of a core executive constitutional function. “Examining the basis of a prosecution delays the criminal proceeding, threatens to chill law enforcement by subjecting the prosecutor’s motives and decisionmaking to outside inquiry, and may undermine prosecutorial effectiveness by revealing the Government’s enforcement policy.” Ibid.
The requirements for a selective-prosecution claim draw on “ordinary equal protection standards.” Id., at 608. The claimant must demonstrate that the federal prosecutorial policy “had a discriminatory effect and that it was motivated by a discriminatory purpose.” Ibid.; accord, Oyler, supra, at 456. To establish a discriminatory effect in a race case, the claimant must show that similarly situated individuals of a different race were not prosecuted. This requirement has been established in our case law since Ah Sin v. Wittman, 198 U. S. 500 (1905). Ah Sin, a subject of China, petitioned a California state court for a writ of habeas corpus, seeking discharge from imprisonment under a San Francisco County ordinance prohibiting persons from setting up gambling tables in rooms barricaded to stop police from entering. Id., at 503. He alleged in his habeas petition “that the ordinance is enforced ‘solely and exclusively against persons of the Chinese race and not otherwise.’ ” Id., at 507. We rejected his contention that this averment made out a claim under the Equal Protection Clause, because it did not allege “that the conditions and practices to which the ordinance was directed did not exist exclusively among the Chinese, or that there were other offenders against the ordinance than the Chinese as to whom it was not enforced.” Id., at 507-508.
The similarly situated requirement does not make a selective-prosecution claim impossible to prove. Twenty years before Ah Sin, we invalidated an ordinance, also adopted by San Francisco, that prohibited the operation of laundries in wooden buildings. Yick Wo, 118 U. S., at 374. The plaintiff in error successfully demonstrated that the ordinance was applied against Chinese nationals but not against other laundry-shop operators. The authorities had denied the applications of 200 Chinese subjects for permits to operate shops in wooden buildings, but granted the applications of 80 individuals who were not Chinese subjects to operate laundries in wooden buildings “under similar conditions.” Ibid. We explained in Ah Sin why the similarly situated requirement is necessary:
“No latitude of intention should be indulged in a case like this. There should be certainty to every intent. Plaintiff in error seeks to set aside a criminal law of the State, not on the ground that it is unconstitutional on its face, not that it is discriminatory in tendency and ultimate actual operation as the ordinance was which was passed on in the Yick Wo case, but that it was made so by the manner of its administration. This is a matter of proof, and no fact should be omitted to make it out completely, when the power of a Federal court is invoked to interfere with the course of criminal justice of a State.” 198 U. S., at 508 (emphasis added).
Although Ah Sin involved federal review of a state conviction, we think a similar rule applies where the power of a federal court is invoked to challenge an exercise of one of the core powers of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, the power to prosecute.
Respondents urge that cases such as Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S. 79 (1986), and Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U. S. 222 (1985), cut against any absolute requirement that there be a showing of failure to prosecute similarly situated individuals. We disagree. In Hunter, we invalidated a state law disenfranchising persons convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude. Id., at 233. Our holding was consistent with ordinary equal protection principles, including the similarly situated requirement. There was convincing direct evidence that the State had enacted the provision for the purpose of disenfranchising blacks, id., at 229-231, and indisputable evidence that the state law had a discriminatory effect on blacks as compared to similarly situated whites: Blacks were “ ‘by even the most modest estimates at least 1.7 times as likely as whites to suffer disfranchisement under’” the law in question, id., at 227 (quoting Underwood v. Hunter, 730 F. 2d 614, 620 (CA11 1984)). Hunter thus affords no support for respondents’ position.
In Batson, we considered “[t]he standards for assessing a prima facie case in the context of discriminatory selection of the venire” in a criminal trial. 476 U. S., at 96. We required a criminal defendant to show “that the prosecutor has exercised peremptory challenges to remove from the venire members of the defendant’s race” and that this fact, the potential for abuse inherent in a peremptory strike, and “any other relevant circumstances raise an inference that the prosecutor used that practice to exclude the veniremen from the petit jury on account of their race.” Ibid. During jury selection, the entire res gestae take place in front of the trial judge. Because the judge has before him the entire venire, he is well situated to detect whether a challenge to the seating of one juror is part of a “pattern” of singling out members of a single race for peremptory challenges. See id., at 97. He is in a position to discern whether a challenge to a black juror has evidentiary significance; the significance may differ if the venire consists mostly of blacks or of whites. Similarly, if the defendant makes out a prima facie case, the prosecutor is called upon to justify only decisions made in the very case then before the court. See id., at 97-98. The trial judge need not review prosecutorial conduct in relation to other venires in other cases.
Having reviewed the requirements to prove a selective-prosecution claim, we turn to the showing necessary to obtain discovery in support of such a claim. If discovery is ordered, the Government must assemble from its own files documents which might corroborate or refute the defendant’s claim. Discovery thus imposes many of the costs present when the Government must respond to a prima facie case of selective prosecution. It will divert prosecutors’ resources and may disclose the Government’s prosecutorial strategy. The justifications for a rigorous standard for the elements of a selective-prosecution claim thus require a correspondingly rigorous standard for discovery in aid of such a claim.
The parties, and the Courts of Appeals which have considered the requisite showing to establish entitlement to discovery, describe this showing with a variety of phrases, like “colorable basis,” “substantial threshold showing,” Tr. of Oral Arg. 5, “substantial and concrete basis,” or “reasonable likelihood,” Brief for Respondents Martin et al. 30. However, the many labels for this showing conceal the degree of consensus about the evidence necessary to meet it. The Courts of Appeals “require some evidence tending to show the existence of the essential elements of the defense,” discriminatory effect and discriminatory intent. United States v. Berrios, 501 F. 2d 1207, 1211 (CA2 1974).
In this case we consider what evidence constitutes “some evidence tending to show the existence” of the discriminatory effect element. The Court of Appeals held that a defendant may establish a colorable basis for discriminatory effect without evidence that the Government has failed to prosecute others who are similarly situated to the defendant. 48 F. 3d, at 1516. We think it was mistaken in this view. The vast majority of the Courts of Appeals require the defendant to produce some evidence that similarly situated defendants of other races could have been prosecuted, but were not, and this requirement is consistent with our equal protection case law. United States v. Parham, 16 F. 3d 844, 846-847 (CA8 1994); United States v. Fares, 978 F. 2d 52, 59-60 (CA2 1992); United States v. Peete, 919 F. 2d 1168, 1176 (CA6 1990); C. E. Carlson, Inc. v. SEC, 859 F. 2d 1429, 1437-1438 (CA10 1988); United States v. Greenwood, 796 F. 2d 49, 52-53 (CA4 1986); United States v. Mitchell, 778 F. 2d 1271, 1277 (CA7 1985). As the three-judge panel explained, “ ‘[selective prosecution’ implies that a selection has taken place.” 21 F. 3d, at 1436.
The Court of Appeals reached its decision in part because it started “with the presumption that people of all races commit all types of crimes — not with the premise that any type of crime is the exclusive province of any particular racial or ethnic group.” 48 F. 3d, at 1516-1517. It cited no authority for this proposition, which seems contradicted by the most recent statistics of the United States Sentencing Commission. Those statistics show: More than 90% of the persons sentenced in 1994 for crack cocaine trafficking were black, United States Sentencing Comm’n, 1994 Annual Report 107 (Table 45); 93.4% of convicted LSD dealers were white, ibid.; and 91% of those convicted for pornography or prostitution were white, id., at 41 (Table 13). Presumptions at war with presumably reliable statistics have no proper place in the analysis of this issue.
The Court of Appeals also expressed concern about the “evidentiary obstacles defendants face.” 48 F. 3d, at 1514. But all of its sister Circuits that have confronted the issue have required that defendants produce some evidence of differential treatment of similarly situated members of other races or protected classes. In the present case, if the claim of selective prosecution were well founded, it should not have been an insuperable task to prove that persons of other races were being treated differently than respondents. For instance, respondents could have investigated whether similarly situated persons of other races were prosecuted by the State of California and were known to federal law enforcement officers, but were not prosecuted in federal court. We think the required threshold — a credible showing of different treatment of similarly situated persons — adequately balances the Government’s interest in vigorous prosecution and the defendant’s interest in avoiding selective prosecution.
In the case before us, respondents’ “study” did not constitute “some evidence tending to show the existence of the essential elements of” a selective-prosecution claim. Berrios, supra, at 1211. The study failed to identify individuals who were not black and could have been prosecuted for the offenses for which respondents were charged, but were not so prosecuted. This omission was not remedied by respondents’ evidence in opposition to the Government’s motion for reconsideration. The newspaper article, which discussed the discriminatory effect of federal drug sentencing laws, was not relevant to an allegation of discrimination in decisions to prosecute. Respondents’ affidavits, which recounted one attorney’s conversation with a drug treatment center employee and the experience of another attorney defending drug prosecutions in state court, recounted hearsay and reported personal conclusions based on anecdotal evidence. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Other defendants had introduced this study in support of similar discovery motions in at least two other Central District cocaine prosecutions. App. 83. Both motions were denied. One District Judge explained from the bench that the 23-person sample before him was “statistically insignificant,” and that the evidence did not indicate “whether there is a bias in the distribution of crime that says black people use crack cocaine, his-panic people use powdered cocaine, Caucasian people use whatever it is they use.” Id., at 119, 120.
We have never determined whether dismissal of the indictment, or some other sanction, is the proper remedy if a court determines that a defendant has been the victim of prosecution on the basis of his race. Here, “it was the government itself that suggested dismissal of the indictments to the district court so that an appeal might lie.” 48 F. 3d 1508, 1510 (CA9 1995).
We reserve the question whether a defendant must satisfy the similarly situated requirement in a case “involving direct admissions by [prosecutors] of discriminatory purpose.” Brief for United States 15.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The motion of appellee Amos for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.
A three-judge District Court has enjoined New Jersey-officials from enforcing a state regulation applicable to payments under the federally financed program for Aid to Families With Dependent Children, Title IV of the Social Security Act of 1935, 49 Stat. 627, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §§ 601-610:
The regulation in question, § 615 of the New Jersey Categorical Assistance Budget Manual, would deny AFDC benefits to the extent that a family’s “total available adjusted income,” calculated without deduction for the “income disregards” specified by § 402 (a) (8) of the federal Act, 42 U. S. C. §602 (a)(8), exceeds a ceiling specified by the State. The regulation is challenged on the grounds (1) that it is in conflict with § 402 (a) (8), and (2) that it fails to provide that, in the calculation of earned family income which is to be compared with the § 615 ceiling, a stepfather’s earnings are not to be taken into account unless they are “actually available” for the current use of the dependent child, 45 CFR § 233.20 (a) (3) (ii). It was also suggested in the proceedings below that § 615.5 of the state regulation conflicts with § 406 (b) of the federal Act, 42 U. S. C. § 606 (b), when it authorizes payments directly to vendors who provide goods or services to beneficiaries.
The District Court upheld the challenge on all three grounds. Judgment was entered enjoining the enforcement of § 615 “insofar as it violates the federal statute” and ordering that New Jersey “revise the regulation to conform to the federal statute.” The state officials appeal.
The appellants and also the United States, in its amicus curiae brief, appropriately point out that there is nothing in the federal statute that prohibits a State from making vendor payments so long as they are made from state funds without federal matching. The statute, § 406, merely does not provide for reimbursement to the State for payments of that kind. We agree with these observations by the appellants and the amicus, and thus disagree with the District Court’s conclusion with respect to direct payments insofar as those payments are made entirely with state funds not reimbursable under § 406 of the federal Act. With this limitation in the application of its general language, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We are asked to decide whether Chapter 138 of New York State’s Laws of 1970, under which the State reimburses private schools throughout the State for certain costs of testing and recordkeeping, violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. A three-judge District Court, with one judge dissenting, held the Act unconstitutional. 342 F. Supp. 439 (SDNY 1972). We noted probable jurisdiction. 409 U. S. 977.
I
In April 1970, the New York Legislature appropriated $28,000,000 for the purpose of reimbursing nonpublic schools throughout the State
“for expenses of services for examination and inspection in connection with administration, grading and the compiling and reporting of the results of tests and examinations, maintenance of records of pupil enrollment and reporting thereon, maintenance of pupil health records, recording of personnel qualifications and characteristics and the preparation and submission to the state of various other reports as provided for or required by law or regulation.” New York Laws 1970, c. 138, § 2.
As indicated by the portion of the statute quoted above, the State has in essence sought to reimburse private schools for performing various “services” which the State “mandates.” Of these mandated services, by far the most expensive for nonpublic schools is the “administration, grading and the compiling and reporting of the results of tests and examinations.” Such “tests and examinations” appear to be of two kinds: (a) state-prepared examinations, such as the “Regents examinations” and the “Pupil Evaluation Program Tests,” and (b) traditional teacher-prepared tests, which are drafted by the nonpublic school teachers for the purpose of measuring the pupils’ progress in subjects required to be taught under state law. The overwhelming majority of testing in nonpublic, as well as public, schools is of the latter variety.
Church-sponsored as well as secular nonpublic schools are eligible to receive payments under the Act. The District Court made findings that the Commissioner of Education had “construed and applied” the Act “to include as permissible beneficiaries schools which (a) ■ impose religious restrictions on admissions; (b) require attendance of pupils at religious activities; (c) require obedience by students to the doctrines and dogmas of a particular faith; (d) require pupils to attend instruction in the theology or doctrine of a particular faith; (e) are an integral part of the religious mission of the church sponsoring it; (f) have as a substantial purpose the inculcation of religious values; (g) impose religious restrictions on faculty appointments; and (h) impose religious restrictions on what or how the faculty may teach.” 342 F. Supp., at 440-441.
A school seeking aid under the Act is required to submit an application to the Commissioner of Education, who may direct the applicant to file “such additional reports” as he deems necessary to make a determination of eligibility. New York Laws 1970, c. 138, § 4. Qualifying schools receive an annual payment of $27 for each pupil in average daily attendance in grades one through six and $45 for each pupil in average daily attendance in grades seven through 12. Payments are made in two installments: Between January 15 and March 15 of the school year, one-half of the “estimated total apportionment” is paid directly to the school; the balance is paid between April 15 and June 15. The Commissioner is empowered to make “later payments for the purpose of adjusting and correcting apportionments.” Id., § 5.
Section 8 of the Act states: “Nothing contained in this act shall be construed to authorize the making of any payment under this act for religious worship or instruction.” However, the Act contains no provision authorizing state audits of school financial records to determine whether a school’s actual costs in complying with the mandated services are less than the annual lump sum payment. Nor does the Act require a school to return to the State moneys received in excess of its actual expenses. In appellant Nyquist’s answers to appellees’ interrogatories, which the parties stipulated could be “taken as accepted facts for the purposes of this case,” the Commissioner stated that “qualifying schools are not required to submit reports accounting for the moneys received and how they are expended.”
II
Appellees are New York taxpayers and an unincorporated association. They filed this suit in the United States District Court claiming that Chapter 138 abridges the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. An injunction was sought enjoining appellants Levitt and Nyquist, the State Comptroller and Commissioner of Education respectively, from enforcing the Act. State Senator Earl W. Brydges and certain Catholic and Jewish parochial schools qualified to receive aid under the Act were permitted to intervene as parties defendant.
A three-judge District Court was convened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §§2281, 2284. After a hearing on the merits, a majority of the District Court permanently enjoined appellants from enforcement of the Act. The District Court concluded that this case was controlled by our decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602 (1971), and held the Act unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause.
In reaching its decision, the District Court rejected appellants' argument that the Act is constitutional because payments are made only for services that are “secular, neutral, or nonideological” in character. Id., at 616. The court stated:
“By far the greatest portion of the funds appropriated under Chapter 138 is paid for the services of teachers in testing students, and testing is an integral part of the teaching process.” 342 F. Supp., at 444.
Likewise, the court dismissed as “fanciful” the contention that a State may reimburse church-related schools for costs incurred in performing any service “mandated” by state law.
III
In Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, post, p. 756, the Court has today struck down a provision of New York law authorizing “direct money grants from the State to 'qualifying' nonpublic schools to be used for the 'maintenance and repair of . . . school facilities and equipment to ensure the health, welfare and safety of enrolled pupils.’ ” Id., at 762 (footnote omitted). The infirmity of the statute in Nyquist lay in its undifferentiated treatment of the maintenance and repair of facilities devoted to religious and secular functions of recipient, sectarian schools. Since “[n]o attempt is made to restrict payments to those expenditures related to the upkeep of facilities used exclusively for secular purposes,” the Court held that the statute has the primary effect of advancing religion and is, therefore, violative of the Establishment Clause. Id., at 774.
The statute now before us, as written and as applied by the Commissioner of Education, contains some of the same constitutional flaws that led the Court to its decision in Nyquist. As noted previously, Chapter 138 provides for a direct money grant to sectarian schools for performance of various “services.” Among those services is the maintenance of a regular program of traditional internal testing designed to measure pupil achievement. Yet, despite the obviously integral role of such testing in the total teaching process, no attempt is made under the statute, and no means are available, to assure that internally prepared tests are free of religious instruction.
We cannot ignore the substantial risk that these examinations, prepared by teachers under the authority of religious institutions, will be drafted with an eye, unconsciously or otherwise, to inculcate students in the religious precepts of the sponsoring church. We do not “assume that teachers in parochial schools will be guilty of bad faith or any conscious design to evade the limitations imposed by the statute and the First Amendment.” Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S., at 618. But the potential for conflict “inheres in the situation,” and because of that the State is constitutionally compelled to assure that the state-supported activity is not being used for religious indoctrination. See id., at 617, 619. Since the State has failed to do so here, we are left with no choice under Nyquist but to hold that Chapter 138 constitutes an impermissible aid to religion; this is so because the aid that will be devoted to secular functions is not identifiable and separable from aid to sectarian activities.
In the District Court and in this Court appellants insisted that payments under Chapter 138 do not aid the religious mission of church-related schools but merely provide partial reimbursement for totally nonsectarian activities performed at the behest of the State. Appellants, in other words, contend that this case is controlled by our decisions in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U. S. 1 (1947), and Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U. S. 236 (1968). In Everson we held that New Jersey could reimburse parents of parochial school children for expenses incurred in transporting the children on buses to their schools. And in Allen we upheld a New York statute requiring local school boards to lend secular textbooks “to all children residing in such district who are enrolled in grades seven to twelve of a public or private school which complies with the compulsory education law.” Id., at 239.
In this case, however, we are faced with state-supported activities of a substantially different character from bus rides or state-provided textbooks. Routine teacher-prepared tests, as noted by the District Court, are “an integral part of the teaching process.” 342 F. Supp., at 444. And, “[i]n terms of potential for involving some aspect of faith or morals in secular subjects, a textbook's content is ascertainable, but a teacher’s handling of a subject is not.” Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S., at 617.
To the extent that appellants argue that the State should be permitted to pay for any activity “mandated” by state law or regulation, we must reject the contention. State or local law might, for example, “mandate” minimum lighting or sanitary facilities for all school buildings, but such commands would not authorize a State to provide support for those facilities in church-sponsored schools. The essential inquiry in each case, as expressed in our prior decisions, is whether the challenged state aid has the primary purpose or effect of advancing religion or religious education or whether it leads to excessive entanglement by the State in the affairs of the religious institution. Committee for Public Education & Re ligious Liberty v. Nyquist, supra, at 772-773; Kurtzman, supra, at 612-613. That inquiry would be irreversibly frustrated if the Establishment Clause were read as permitting a State to pay for whatever it requires a private school to do.
We hold that the lump-sum payments under Chapter 138 violate the Establishment Clause. Since Chapter 138 provides only for a single per-pupil allotment for a variety of specified services, some secular and some potentially religious, neither this Court nor the District Court can properly reduce that allotment to an amount corresponding to the actual costs incurred in performing reimbursable secular services. That is a legislative, not a judicial, function.
Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice Brennan, and Mr. Justice Marshall are of the view that affirmance is compelled by our decision today in Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, post, p. 756, and Sloan v. Lemon, post, p. 825.
Mr. Justice White dissents.
N. Y. Educ. Law § 305 charges the Commissioner of Education with the duty of maintaining general supervision over all schools throughout the State and with making sure that each school is “examined and inspected.”
The Regents’ examinations are described by appellants Levitt and Nyquist as “state-wide tests of subject matter achievement.” The pupil evaluation program tests, the so-called “PEP Tests,” are also administered throughout the State in grades three, six, and nine.
The District Court indicated that there was some doubt as to whether teacher-prepared tests are within the scope of the Act. The uncertainty was due to one of appellant Nyquist’s answers to appel-lees’ interrogatories, which stated that “only the Regents Scholarship and January and June Regents Examinations might be regarded as specifically mandated.” 342 F. Supp. 439, 441 (emphasis in original interrogatory). The District Court, however, found it unnecessary to resolve this factual ambiguity, stating: “While our decision as to the constitutionality of the statute does not turn on the factual question so presented, we mention it to illustrate the lack of certainty as to the purposes for which the moneys received are actually used, or, indeed, whether they can be regarded as specifically ‘mandated.’ ” Ibid.
In this Court, appellants have insisted that since teacher-prepared examinations are required by state regulation they are included within the services reimbursed under the Act. In support of the former proposition, the appellants cite § 176.1 (b) of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, which provides that all nonpublic schools “shall conduct in all grades in which instruction is offered a continuing program of individual pupil testing designed to provide an adequate basis for evaluating pupil achievement, and in addition shall administer, rate and report the results of all specific tests or examinations which may be prescribed by the commissioner.” 8 N. Y. C. R.R.§ 176.1 (b).
Appellees do not contest the validity of appellants’ construction of the Act, and we accept it for the purposes of this litigation.
Exactly how the $27 and $45 figures were arrived at is somewhat unclear. Appellant Nyquist, in his answer to appellees’ interrogatories in the court below, gave the following explanation:
“That prior to the enactment of Chapter 138 of the Laws of 1970, a conference was held in which representatives of the Office of the Counsel to the Governor, of the Division of the Budget in the Executive Department and of the State Education Department participated; that at said conference the representatives of the State Education Department were asked whether the dollar amount in question was reasonable and that the answer was that to the best of their judgment the amount was reasonable; that no record of the said conference was made.”
Subsequent to the enactment of Chapter 138, the state conducted several studies to determine whether the per-pupil allotment under the statute exceeded the actual costs to schools in performing the mandated services. The District Court found the results “cloudy”:
“If such items as ‘teacher examinations’ and ‘entrance examinations’ are included in the list of ‘mandated services,’ it appears that the schools’ expenses are at least as great as the amounts they receive from the state. But if those items are excluded, the amounts received from the state are substantially greater than the schools’ expenses.” 342 F. Supp., at 441.
As noted above, the court did not resolve the question whether payments under the Act were intended to compensate schools for internal testing. See n. 3, supra.
The Court’s holding as to grants of public funds for “maintenance and repair of . . . school facilities and equipment . . is sufficient authority to support affirmance of the District Court holding in this case. The author of this opinion joined that part of the Court’s holding in Nyquist, supra, while dissenting from the holding that tuition grants and tax credits to parents are unconstitutional, and is, of course, bound by all parts of the judgment.
We do not doubt that the New York Legislature had a “secular legislative purpose” in enacting Chapter 138. See Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U. S. 97 (1968). The first section of the Act provides that the State has a “primary responsibility” to assure that its youth receive an adequate education; that the State has the “duty and authority” to examine and inspect all schools within its borders to make sure that adequate educational opportunities are being provided; and that the State has a legitimate interest in assisting those schools insofar as they aid the State in fulfilling its responsibility.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented is whether the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits the State of Arizona from sentencing respondent to death after the life sentence he had initially received was set aside on appeal. We agree with the Supreme Court of Arizona that Bullington v. Missouri, 451 U. S. 430 (1981), squarely controls the disposition of this case. Under the interpretation of the Double Jeopardy Clause adopted in that decision, imposition of the death penalty on respondent would be unconstitutional.
I
An Arizona jury convicted respondent of armed robbery and first degree murder. The trial judge, with no jury, then conducted a separate sentencing hearing to determine, according to the statutory scheme for considering aggravating and mitigating circumstances, Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-703 (Supp. 1983-1984), whether death was the appropriate sentence for the murder conviction. Petitioner, relying entirely on the evidence presented at trial, argued that three statutory aggravating circumstances were present. Respondent, presenting only one witness, countered that no aggravating circumstances were present but that several mitigating circumstances were. One of the principal points of contention concerned the scope of Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-703(F)(5) (Supp. 1983-1984), which defines as an aggravating circumstance the murder’s commission “as consideration for the receipt, or in expectation of the receipt, of anything of pecuniary value.” Respondent argued that this provision applies only to murders for hire, whereas petitioner argued that it applies to all murders committed in order to obtain money.
Several days after the sentencing hearing, the trial judge, who imposes sentence without the assistance of a jury under the Arizona scheme, returned a “special verdict” setting forth his findings on each of the statutory aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The judge found that no aggravating or mitigating circumstances were present. App. 53-58. In particular, with respect to the aggravating circumstance defined in § 13-703(F)(5), the trial judge found:
“5. The defendant did not commit the offense as consideration for the receipt or in expectation of the receipt of anything of pecuniary value.
“In this regard, the Court does not agree with the State’s interpretation of A. R. S. 13-703(F)(5) and State v. Madsen filed March 26, 1980. The Court believes that when A. R. S. 13-703(F)(4) and (5) are read together that they are intended to apply to a contract-type killing situation and not to a robbery, burglary, etc.” App. 54-55.
Having found no aggravating circumstances, the trial court was statutorily barred from sentencing respondent to death. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-703(E) (Supp. 1983-1984); App. to Pet. for Cert. A-3. The court accordingly sentenced respondent to life imprisonment without possibility of parole-for 25 years, the sentence statutorily mandated for first degree murder when the death penalty is not imposed. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-703(A) (Supp. 1983-1984). With respect to the armed robbery conviction, the court found that respondent had committed a “dangerous offense” involving use of a deadly weapon and that there was an aggravating circumstance not outweighed by any mitigating circumstance — respondent had “planned this robbery ... in order to obtain what [he] knew was only a few hundred dollars . . . .” App. 66. As authorized by Arizona law, Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 13-604 and 13-702 (1978 and Supp. 1983-1984), the court accordingly sentenced respondent to 21 years’ imprisonment for armed robbery. The prison terms for the two convictions were to run consecutively.
Respondent appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Arizona, arguing that imposition of consecutive sentences in his case violated both federal and state law. Under Arizona law, Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-4032(4) (1978), respondent’s appeal permitted petitioner to file a cross-appeal from the life sentence; in that cross-appeal petitioner contended that the trial court had committed an error of law in interpreting the pecuniary gain aggravating circumstance to apply only to contract killings. The State Supreme Court rejected respondent’s challenge to his sentence. It agreed with petitioner, however, that the trial court had misinterpreted § 13-703(F)(5): “theft committed in the course of a murder” could constitute an aggravating circumstance under that section. 130 Ariz. 427, 431, 636 P. 2d 1209, 1213 (1981). Because of the trial court’s misinterpretation, the State Supreme Court concluded, “the sentence of life imprisonment previously imposed will have to be set aside and the matter remanded for redetermination of aggravating and mitigating circumstances and resentencing.” Id., at 432, 636 P. 2d, at 1214. The sentence for armed robbery was left undisturbed.
On remand the trial court held a new sentencing hearing. Neither petitioner nor respondent presented any new evidence, although they had the opportunity to do so. The court heard argument, however, both on the lawfulness of imposing the death penalty on resentencing and on the presence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
Petitioner argued that neither federal nor state law barred sentencing respondent to death. Petitioner also urged the court to find the three statutory aggravating circumstances identified at the first sentencing, largely repeating the arguments it had made at the first proceeding. App. 78-94. Respondent argued that imposing the death penalty would violate Bullington v. Missouri, 451 U. S. 430 (1981), North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U. S. 711 (1969), and Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.14, which implements the resentenc-ing principles of the Pearce case. With respect to aggravating and mitigating circumstances, respondent effectively conceded the presence of the pecuniary gain aggravating circumstance, thinking the issue foreclosed by a statement in the opinion of the State Supreme Court. See App. 104; 130 Ariz., at 431, 636 P. 2d, at 1213 (“In the instant case, the hope of financial gain was a cause of the murder . . .”). But respondent contended that this aggravating circumstance was outweighed by a statutory mitigating circumstance not among the five enumerated in the death sentencing statute: according to the testimony of the jury foreperson, the conviction for first degree murder was based on the felony-murder instruction, not on the premeditation instruction; thus, respondent contended, to regard the theft as an aggravating circumstance after using it to elevate second degree murder into first would be a form of double counting. App. 94-108.
Several days after the hearing, the trial court returned a special verdict reciting findings on each of the statutory aggravating and mitigating circumstances and on the one nonstatutory mitigating circumstance urged by respondent. The court found to be present only one of the seven statutory aggravating circumstances, namely, § 13-703(F)(5), concerning commission of the murder for pecuniary gain. The court also found that none of the five statutory mitigating circumstances was present and that the fact that the murder conviction was for felony murder, if a mitigating circumstance at all, was not sufficiently substantial to call for leniency. App. 118-124. Accordingly, as required under Arizona law, Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §13-703(E) (Supp. 1983-1984), the court sentenced respondent to death.
In his mandatory appeal to the Supreme Court of Arizona, respondent argued that imposition of the death sentence on resentencing, after he had effectively been “acquitted” of death at his initial sentencing, violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as applied to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. Benton v. Maryland, 395 U. S. 784 (1969). He also argued that the death sentence violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as interpreted in North Carolina v. Pearce, supra. The Supreme Court of Arizona addressed only the first argument. It concluded that, under this Court’s decision in Bullington v. Missouri, supra, respondent’s sentence violated the constitutional prohibition on double jeopardy. 136 Ariz. 166, 665 P. 2d 48 (1983). The court therefore ordered respondent’s sentence for first degree murder reduced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole for 25 years.
The State of Arizona filed a petition for a writ of certiorari. We granted certiorari, 464 U. S. 1038 (1983), and now affirm.
1 — 1
In Bullington v. Missouri this Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause applies to Missouri’s capital sentencing proceeding and thus bars imposition of the death penalty upon reconviction after an initial conviction, set aside on appeal, has resulted in rejection of the death sentence. The Court identified several characteristics of Missouri’s sentencing proceeding that make it comparable to a trial for double jeopardy purposes. The discretion of the sentencer — the jury in Missouri — is restricted to precisely two options: death, and life imprisonment without possibility of release for 50 years. In addition, the sentencer is to make its decision guided by substantive standards and based on evidence introduced in a separate proceeding that formally resembles a trial. Finally, the prosecution has to prove certain statutorily defined facts beyond a reasonable doubt in order to support a sentence of death. 451 U. S., at 438. For these reasons, when the Missouri sentencer imposes a sentence of life imprisonment in a capital sentencing proceeding, it has determined that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. Because the Court believed that the anxiety and ordeal suffered by a defendant in Missouri’s capital sentencing proceeding are the equal of those suffered in a trial on the issue of guilt, the Court concluded that the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits the State from resentencing the defendant to death after the sentencer has in effect acquitted the defendant of that penalty.
The capital sentencing proceeding in Arizona shares the characteristics of the Missouri proceeding that make it resemble a trial for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause. The sentencer — the trial judge in Arizona — is required to choose between two options: death, and life imprisonment without possibility of parole for 25 years. The sentencer must make the decision guided by detailed statutory standards defining aggravating and mitigating circumstances; in particular, death may not be imposed unless at least one aggravating circumstance is found, whereas death must be imposed if there is one aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstance sufficiently substantial to call for leniency. The sentencer must make findings with respect to each of the statutory aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and the sentencing hearing involves the submission of evidence and the presentation of argument. The usual rules of evidence govern the admission of evidence of aggravating circumstances, and the State must prove the existence of aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §13-703 (Supp. 1983-1984); 136 Ariz., at 171-172, 665 P. 2d, at 53-54. As the Supreme Court of Arizona held, these characteristics make the Arizona capital sentencing proceeding indistinguishable for double jeopardy purposes from the capital sentencing proceeding in Missouri. Id., at 171-174, 665 P. 2d, at 53-56.
That the sentencer in Arizona is the trial judge rather than the jury does not render the sentencing proceeding any less like a trial. See United States v. Morrison, 429 U. S. 1, 3 (1976) (Double Jeopardy Clause treats bench and jury trials alike). Nor does the availability of appellate review, including reweighing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, make the appellate process part of a single continuing sentencing proceeding. The Supreme Court of Arizona noted that its role is strictly that of an appellate court, not a trial court. Indeed, no appeal need be taken if life imprisonment is imposed, and the appellate reweighing can work only to the defendant’s advantage. 136 Ariz., at 173-174, 665 P. 2d, at 55-56. In short, a sentence imposed after a completed Arizona capital sentencing hearing is a judgment like the sentence at issue in Bullington v. Missouri, which this Court held triggers the protections of the Double Jeopardy Clause.
The double jeopardy principle relevant to respondent’s case is the same as that invoked in Bullington: an acquittal on the merits by the sole decisionmaker in the proceeding is final and bars retrial on the same charge. Application of the Bullington principle renders respondent’s death sentence a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause because respondent’s initial sentence of life imprisonment was undoubtedly an acquittal on the merits of the central issue in the proceeding— whether death was the appropriate punishment for respondent’s offense. The trial court entered findings denying the existence of each of the seven statutory aggravating circumstances, and as required by state law, the court then entered judgment in respondent’s favor on the issue of death. That judgment, based, on findings sufficient to establish legal entitlement to the life sentence, amounts to an acquittal on the merits and, as such, bars any retrial of the appropriateness of the death penalty.
In making its findings, the trial court relied on a misconstruction of the statute defining the pecuniary gain aggravating circumstance. Reliance on an error of law, however, does not change the double jeopardy effects of a judgment that amounts to an acquittal on the merits. “[T]he fact that ‘the acquittal may result from erroneous evidentiary rulings or erroneous interpretations of governing legal principles’ . . . affects the accuracy of that determination, but it does not alter its essential character.” United States v. Scott, 437 U. S. 82, 98 (1978) (quoting id., at 106 (Brennan, J., dissenting)). Thus, this Court’s cases hold that an acquittal on the merits bars retrial even if based on legal error.
United States v. Wilson, 420 U. S. 332 (1975), held that the prosecution could appeal from a judgment of acquittal entered by the trial judge after the jury had returned a verdict of guilty. But that holding has no application to this case. No double jeopardy problem was presented in Wilson because the appellate court, upon reviewing asserted legal errors of the trial judge, could simply order the jury’s guilty verdict reinstated; no new factfinding would be necessary, and the defendant therefore would not be twice placed in jeopardy. By contrast, in respondent’s initial capital sentencing, there was only one decisionmaker and only one set of findings of fact, all favorable to respondent. The trial court “acquitted” respondent of the death penalty, and there was no verdict of “guilty” for the appellate court to reinstate. The Supreme Court of Arizona accordingly “remanded for redetermination of aggravating and mitigating circumstances and resentencing,” 130 Ariz., at 432, 636 P. 2d, at 1214 — that is, for a second sentencing proceeding similar to the first. Whereas the defendant in Wilson was not to be subjected to a second trial after an acquittal at his first, that is precisely what has happened to respondent.
rH I — I l-H
Bullington v. Missouri held that double jeopardy protections attach to Missouri’s capital sentencing proceeding because that proceeding is like a trial. The capital sentencing proceeding in Arizona is indistinguishable for double jeopardy purposes from the proceeding in Missouri. Under Bullington, therefore, respondent’s initial sentence of life imprisonment constitutes an acquittal of the death penalty, and the State of Arizona cannot now sentence respondent to death on his conviction for first degree murder.
Petitioner has invited the Court to overrule Bullington, decided only three years ago. We decline the invitation. Although adherence to precedent is not rigidly required in constitutional cases, any departure from the doctrine of stare decisis demands special justification. See, e. g., Swift & Co. v. Wickham, 382 U. S. 111, 116 (1965); Smith v. Allwright, 321 U. S. 649, 665 (1944). Petitioner has suggested no reason sufficient to warrant our taking the exceptional action of overruling Bullington.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Arizona is therefore
Affirmed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Halveys were married in 1937 and lived together in New York until 1944. In 1938 a son was born. Marital troubles developed. In 1944 Mrs. Halvey, without her husband’s consent, left home with the child, went to Florida, and established her residence there. In 1945 she instituted a suit for divorce in Florida. Service of process on Mr. Halvey was had by publication, he making no appearance in the action. The day before the Florida decree was granted, Mr. Halvey, without the knowledge or approval of his wife, took the child back to New York. The next day the decree was entered by the Florida court, granting Mrs. Halvey a divorce and awarding her the permanent care, custody, and control of the child.
Thereupon she brought this habeas corpus proceeding in the New York Supreme Court, challenging the legality of Mr. Iialvey’s detention of the child. After hearing, the New York court ordered (1) that the custody of the child remain with the mother; (2) that the father have rights of visitation including the right to keep the child with him during stated vacation periods in each year, and (3) that the mother file with the court a surety bond in the sum of $5,000, conditioned on the delivery of the child in Florida for removal by the father to New York for the periods when he had the right to keep the child with him. 185 Misc. 52, 55 N. Y. S. 761. Both the Appellate Division, 269 App. Div. 1019, 59 N. Y. S. 2d 396, and the Court of Appeals, 295 N. Y. 836, 66 N. E. 2d 851, affirmed without opinion. The case is here on a petition for a writ of certiorari which we granted because it presented an important problem under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. Article IV, § 1.
The custody decree was not irrevocable and unchangeable; the Florida court had the power to modify it at all times. Under Florida law the “welfare of the child” is the “chief consideration” in shaping the custody decree or in subsequently modifying or changing it. Frazier v. Frazier, 109 Fla. 164, 169, 147 So. 464, 466; See Phillips v. Phillips, 153 Fla. 133, 134-135, 13 So. 2d 922, 923. But “the inherent rights of parents to enjoy the society and association of their offspring, with reasonable opportunity to impress upon them a father’s or a mother’s love and affection in their upbringing, must be regarded as being of an equally important, if not controlling consideration in adjusting the right of custody as between parents in ordinary cases.” Frazier v. Frazier, 109 Fla., p. 169, 147 So., p. 466. Facts which have arisen since the original decree are one basis for modification of the custody decree. Frazier v. Frazier, 109 Fla., p. 168, 147 So., p. 465; Jones v. Jones, 156 Fla. 524, 527, 23 So. 2d 623, 625. But the power is not so restricted. It was held in Meadows v. Meadows, 78 Fla. 576, 83 So. 392-393, that “the proper custody of the minor child is a proper subject for consideration by the chancellor at any time, even if facts in issue could have been considered at a previous hearing, if such facts were not presented or considered at a former hearing.” (Italics added.) Or, as stated in Frazier v. Frazier, 109 Fla., p. 168, 147 So., p. 465, a custody decree “is not to be materially amended or changed afterward, unless on altered conditions shown to have arisen since the decree, or because of material facts bearing on the question of custody and existing at the time of the decree, but which were unknown to the Court and then only for the welfare of the child.” The result is that custody decrees of Florida courts are ordinarily not res judicata either in Florida or elsewhere, except as to the facts before the court at the time of judgment. Minick v. Minick, 111 Fla. 469, 490-491, 149 So. 483, 492.
Respondent did not appear in the Florida proceeding. What evidence was adduced in that proceeding bearing on the welfare of the child does not appear. But we know that the Florida court did not see respondent nor hear evidence presented on his behalf concerning his fitness or his claim “to enjoy the society and association” of his son. Frazier v. Frazier, 109 Fla., p. 169, 147 So., p. 466. It seems to us plain, therefore, that under the rule of Meadows v. Meadows, supra, the Florida court would have been empowered to modify the decree in the interests of the child and to grant respondent the right of visitation, if he had applied to it rather than to the New York court and had presented his version of the controversy for the first time in his application for modification.
So far as the Full Faith and Credit Clause is concerned, what Florida could do in modifying the decree, New York may do. Article IV, § 1 of the Constitution provides that “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.” Congress by the Act of May 26, 1790, c. 11, as amended, R. S. § 905, 28 U. S. C. § 687 declared that judgments “shall have such faith and credit given to them in every court within the United States as they have by law or usage in the courts of the State from which they are taken.” The general rule is that this command requires the judgment of a sister State to be given full, not partial, credit in the State of the forum. See Davis v. Davis, 305 U. S. 32; Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U. S. 287. But a judgment has no constitutional claim to a more conclusive or final effect in the State of the forum than it has in the State where rendered. See Reynolds v. Stockton, 140 U. S. 254, 264. If the court of the State which rendered the judgment had no jurisdiction over the person or the subject matter, the jurisdictional infirmity is not saved by the Full Faith and Credit Clause. See Thompson v. Whitman, 18 Wall. 457; Griffin, v. Griffin, 327 U. S. 220. And if the amount payable under a decree—as in the case of a judgment for alimony—is discretionary with the court which rendered it, full faith and credit does not protect the judgment. Sistare v. Sistare, 218 U. S. 1, 17. Whatever may be the authority of a State to undermine a judgment of a sister State on grounds not cognizable in the State where the judgment was rendered (Cf. Williams v. North Carolina, 325 U. S. 226, 230), it is clear that the State of the forum has at least as much leeway to disregard the judgment, to qualify it, or to depart from it as does the State where it was rendered.
In this case the New York court, having the child and both parents before it, had a full hearing and determined that the welfare of the child and the interests of the father warranted a modification of the custody decree. It is not shown that the New York court in modifying the Florida decree exceeded the limits permitted under Florida law. There is therefore a failure of proof that the Florida decree received less credit in New York than it had in Florida.
The narrow ground on which we rest the decision makes it unnecessary for us to consider several other questions argued, e. g., whether Florida at the time of the original decree had jurisdiction over the child, the father having removed him from the State after the proceedings started but before the decree was entered; whether in absence of personal service the Florida’ decree of custody had any binding effect on the husband; whether the power, of New York to modify the custody decree was greater than Florida’s power; whether the State which has jurisdiction over the child may, regardless of a custody decree rendered by another State, make such orders concerning custody as the welfare of the child from time to time requires. On all these problems we reserve decision.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Jackson concurs in the result on the ground that the record before us does not show jurisdiction in the Florida court.
“In any suit for divorce or alimony, the court shall have power at any stage of the cause to make such orders touching the care, custody and maintenance of the children of the marriage, and what, if any, security to be given for the same, as from the circumstances of the parties and the nature of the case may be fit, equitable and just, and such order touching their custody as their best spiritual as well as other interests may require.” Fla. Stats. (1941) § 65.14.
The legal domicile of the child is usually the domicile of his father. Minick v. Minick, 111 Fla., p. 490, 149 So., p. 492; Dorman v. Friendly, 146 Fla. 732, 738, 1 So. 2d 734, 736. The power of the Florida courts to award custody of a child is dependent either on the child being legally domiciled in Florida or physically present there. Dorman v. Friendly, supra; State ex rel. Clark v. Clark, 148 Fla. 452, 4 So. 2d 517.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | K | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari to resolve the question of whether an accused may be subjected to a second trial when conviction in a prior trial was reversed by an appellate court solely for lack of sufficient evidence to sustain the jury’s verdict.
I
Petitioner Burks was tried in the United States District Court for the crime of robbing a federally insured bank by use of a dangerous weapon, a violation of 18 U. S. C. § 2113 (d) (1976 ed.). Burks’ principal defense was insanity. To prove this claim petitioner produced three expert witnesses who testified, albeit with differing diagnoses of his mental condition, that he suffered from a mental illness at the time of the robbery, which rendered him substantially incapable of conforming his conduct to the requirements of the law. In rebuttal the Government offered the testimony of two experts, one of whom testified that although petitioner possessed a character disorder, he was not mentally ill. The other prosecution witness acknowledged a character disorder in petitioner, but gave a rather ambiguous answer to the question of whether Burks had been capable of conforming his conduct to the law. Lay witnesses also testified for the Government, expressing their opinion that petitioner appeared to be capable of normal functioning and was sane at the time of the alleged offense.
Before the case was submitted to the jury, the court denied a motion for a judgment of acquittal. The jury found Burks guilty as charged. Thereafter, he filed a timely motion for a new trial, maintaining, among other things, that “[t]he evidence was insufficient to support the verdict.” The motion was denied by the District Court, which concluded that petitioner’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence was “utterly without merit.”
On appeal petitioner narrowed the issues by admitting the affirmative factual elements of the charge against him, leaving only his claim concerning criminal responsibility to be resolved. With respect to this point, the Court of Appeals agreed with petitioner’s claim that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict and reversed his conviction. 547 F. 2d 968 (OA6 1976). The court began by noting that “the government has the burden of proving sanity [beyond a reasonable doubt] once a prima facie defense of insanity has been raised.” Id., at 969. Petitioner had met his obligation, the court indicated, by presenting “the specific testimony of three experts with unchallenged credentials.” Id., at 970. But the reviewing court went on to hold that the United States had not fulfilled its burden since the prosecution’s evidence with respect to Burks’ mental condition, even when viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, did not “effectively rebu[t]” petitioner’s proof with respect to insanity and criminal responsibility. Ibid. In particular, the witnesses presented by the prosecution failed to “express definite opinions on the precise questions which this Court has identified as critical in cases involving the issue of sanity.” Ibid.
At this point, the Court of Appeals, rather than terminating the case against petitioner, remanded to the District Court “for a determination of whether a directed verdict of acquittal should be entered or a new trial ordered.” Ibid. Indicating that the District Court should choose the appropriate course “from a balancing of the equities,” ibid., the court explicitly adopted the procedures utilized by the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Bass, 490 F. 2d 846, 852-853 (1974), “as a guide” to be used on remand:
“[W]e reverse and remand the case to the district court where the defendant will be entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal unless the government presents sufficient additional evidence to carry its burden on the issue of defendant’s sanity. As we noted earlier, the question of sufficiency of the evidence to make an issue for the jury on the defense of insanity is a question of law to be decided by the trial judge. ... If the district court, sitting without the presence of the jury, is satisfied by the government’s presentation, it may order a new trial. . . . Even if the government presents additional evidence, the district judge may refuse to order a new trial if he finds from the record that the prosecution had the opportunity fully to develop its case or in fact did so at the first trial.”
The Court of Appeals assumed it had the power to order this “balancing” remedy by virtue of the fact that Burks had explicitly requested a new trial. As authority for this holding the court cited, inter alia, 28 U. S. C. § 2106, and Bryan v. United States, 338 U. S. 552 (1950). 547 F. 2d, at 970.
II
The United States has not cross-petitioned for certiorari on the question of whether the Court of Appeals was correct in holding that the Government had failed to meet its burden of proof with respect to the claim of insanity. Accordingly, that issue is not open for review here. Given this posture, we are squarely presented with the question of whether a defendant may be tried a second time when a reviewing court has determined that in a prior trial the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict of the jury.
Petitioner’s argument is straightforward. He contends that the Court of Appeals’ holding was nothing more or less than a decision that the District Court had erred by not granting his motion for a judgment of acquittal. By implication, he argues, the appellate reversal was the operative equivalent of a district court’s judgment of acquittal, entered either before or after verdict. Petitioner points out, however, that had the District Court found the evidence at the first trial inadequate, as the Court of Appeals said it should have done, a second trial would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Therefore, he maintains, it makes no difference that the determination of evidentiary insufficiency was made by a reviewing court since the double jeopardy considerations are the same, regardless of which court decides that a judgment of acquittal is in order.
The position advanced by petitioner has not been embraced by our prior holdings. Indeed, as the Court of Appeals here recognized, Bryan v. United States, supra, would appear to be contrary. In Bryan the defendant was convicted in the District Court for evasion of federal income tax laws. Bryan had moved for a judgment of acquittal both at the close of the Government's case and when all of the evidence had been presented. After the verdict was returned he renewed these motions, but asked — in the alternative — for a new trial. These motions were all denied. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction on the specific ground that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict and remanded the case for a new trial. Certiorari was then granted to determine whether the Court of Appeals had properly ordered a new trial, or whether it should have entered a judgment of acquittal. In affirming the Court of Appeals, this Court decided, first, that the Court of Appeals had statutory authority, under 28 U. S. C. § 2106, to direct a new trial. But Bryan had also maintained that notwithstanding § 2106 a retrial was prohibited by the Double Jeopardy Clause, a contention which was dismissed in one paragraph:
“Petitioner's contention that to require him to stand trial again would be to place him twice in jeopardy is not persuasive. He sought and obtained the reversal of his conviction, assigning a number of alleged errors on appeal, including denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal. ‘. . . [W]here the accused successfully seeks review of á conviction, there is no double jeopardy upon a new trial. Francis v. Resweber, 329 U. S. 459, 462. See Trono v. United States, 199 U. S. 521, 533-534.” 338 U. S., at 560.
Five years after Bryan was decided, a similar claim of-double jeopardy was presented to the Court in Sapir v. United States, 348 U. S. 373 (1955). Sapir had been convicted of conspiracy by a jury in the District Court. After the trial court denied a motion for acquittal, he obtained a reversal in the Court of Appeals, which held that the motion should have been granted since the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction. In a brief per curiam opinion, this Court, without explanation, reversed the Court of Appeals' decision to remand the petitioner’s case for a new trial.
Concurring in the Sapir judgment, which directed the dismissal of the indictment, Mr. Justice Douglas indicated his basis for reversal:
“The correct rule was stated in Kepner v. United States, 195 U. S. 100, at 130, 'It is, then, the settled law of this court that former jeopardy includes one who has been acquitted by a verdict duly rendered . . . .’ If the jury had acquitted, there plainly would be double jeopardy to give the Government another go at this citizen. If, as in the Kepner case, the trial judge had rendered a verdict of acquittal, the guarantee against double jeopardy would prevent a new trial of the old offense. I see no difference when the appellate court orders a judgment of acquittal for lack of evidence.” Id., at 374.
Up to this point, Mr. Justice Douglas’ explication is, of course, precisely that urged on us by petitioner, and presumably would have been applicable to Bryan as well. But the concurrence in Sapir then undertook to distinguish Bryan:
“If petitioner [Sapir] had asked for anew trial, different considerations would come into play, for then the defendant opens the whole record for such disposition as might he just. See Bryan v. United States, 338 U. S. 552.” 348 U. S., at 374. (Emphasis added.)
Shortly after Sapir, in Yates v. United States, 354 U. S. 298 (1957), the Court adopted much the same reasoning as that employed by the Sapir concurrence. In Yates, this Court— without citing Sapir — ordered acquittals for some defendants in the case, but new trials for others, when one of the main contentions of the petitioners concerned the insufficiency of the evidence. As an explanation for the differing remedies, the Court stated:
“We think we may do this by drawing on our power under 28 U. S. C. § 2106, because under that statute we would no doubt be justified in refusing to order acquittal even where the evidence might be deemed palpably insufficient, particularly since petitioners have asked in the alternative for a new trial as well as for acquittal. See Bryan v. United States, 338 U. S. 552.” 354 U. S., at 328.
The Yates decision thus paralleled Sapir’s concurrence in the sense that both would allow a new trial to correct evidentiary insufficiency if the defendant had requested such relief — even as an alternative to a motion for acquittal. But the language in Yates was also susceptible of a broader reading, namely, that appellate courts have full authority to order a new trial as a remedy for evidentiary insufficiency, even when the defendant has moved only for a judgment of acquittal.
Three years later in Forman v. United States, 361 U. S. 416, (1960), the Court again treated these questions. There aj conviction was reversed by the Court of Appeals due to an improper instruction to the jury, i. e., trial error, as opposed to evidentiary insufficiency. Although the petitioner in Forman had moved both for a new trial and judgment of acquittal, , he argued that a new trial would not be appropriate relief ; since he had requested a judgment of acquittal with respect to ; the specific trial error on which this Court agreed with the j Court of Appeals. Without distinguishing between a reversal j due to trial error and reversal resulting solely from evidentiary j insufficiency, this Court held that a new trial did not involve double jeopardy:
“It is elementary in our law that a person can be tried a second time for an offense when his prior conviction for that same offense has been set aside by his appeal. United States v. Ball, 163 U. S. 662, 672 (1896). . . . Even though petitioner be right in his claim that he did not request a new trial with respect to the portion of the charge dealing with the statute of limitations, still his plea of double jeopardy must fail. Under 28 U. S. C. § 2106, the Court of Appeals has full power to go beyond the particular relief sought. See Ball, and other cases, supra.” Id., at 425.
Until this stage in the Forman opinion the Court seemed to adopt the more expansive implication of Yates, i. e., that an appellate court’s choice of remedies for an unfair conviction— whether reversal be compelled by failure of proof or trial error — would not turn on the relief requested by the defendant. The Forman decision, however, was not entirely free from ambiguity. In the course of meeting the petitioner’s argument that Sapir demanded a judgment of acquittal, the Court noted two differences between those cases. In the first place, “the order to dismiss in Sapir was based on the insufficiency of the evidence, which could be cured only by the introduction of new evidence”; in Forman, however, “ ‘[t]he jury was simply not properly instructed.’ ” 361 U. S., at 426. In addition, “Sapir made no motion for a new trial in the District Court, while here petitioner ‘[Forman] filed such a motion. That was a decisive factor in Sapir’s case.” Ibid. (Emphasis added.)
The Court’s holdings in this area, beginning with Bryan, can hardly be characterized as models of consistency and clarity. Bryan seemingly stood for the proposition that an appellate court could order whatever relief was “appropriate” or “equitable,” regardless of what considerations prompted reversal. A somewhat different course was taken by the concurrence in Sapir, where it was suggested that a reversal for evidentiary insufficiency would require a judgment of acquittal unless the defendant had requested a new trial. Yates, on the contrary, implied that new trials could be ordered to cure prior inadequacies of proof even when the defendant had not so moved. While not completely resolving these ambiguities, Forman suggested that a reviewing court could go beyond the relief requested by a defendant and order a new trial under some circumstances. In discussing Sapir, however, the Forman Court intimated that a different result might follow if the conviction was reversed for evidentiary insufficiency and the defendant had not requested a new trial.
After the Bryan-Forman line of decisions at least one proposition emerged: A defendant who requests a new trial as one avenue of relief may be required to stand trial again, even when his conviction was reversed due to failure of proof at the first trial. Given that petitioner here appealed from a denial of a motion for a new trial — although he had moved for acquittal during trial — our prior cases would seem to indicate that the Court of Appeals had power to remand on the terms it ordered. To reach a different result will require a departure from those holdings.
Ill
It is unquestionably true that the Court of Appeals' decision “represented] a resolution, correct or not, of some or all of the factual elements of the offense charged.” United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U. S. 564, 571 (1977). By deciding that the Government had failed to come forward with sufficient proof of petitioner’s capacity to be responsible for criminal acts, that court was clearly saying that Burks’ criminal culpability had not been established. If the District Court had so held in the first instance, as the reviewing court said it should have done,- a judgment of acquittal would have been entered and, of course, petitioner could not be retried for the same offense. See Fong Foo v. United States, 369 U. S. 141 (1962); Kepner v. United States, 195 U. S. 100 (1904). Consequently, as Mr. Justice Douglas correctly perceived in Sapir, it should make no difference that the reviewing court, rather than the trial court, determined the evidence to be insufficient, see 348 U. S., at 374. The appellate decision unmistakably meant that the District Court had erred in failing to grant a judgment of acquittal. To hold otherwise would create a purely arbitrary distinction between those in petitioner’s position and others who would enjoy the benefit of a correct decision by the District Court. See Sumpter v. DeGroote, 552 F. 2d 1206, 1211-1212 (CA7 1977).
The Double Jeopardy Clause forbids a second trial for the purpose of affording the prosecution another opportunity to supply evidence which it failed to muster in the first proceeding. This is central to the objective of the prohibition against successive trials. The Clause does not allow "the State . . . to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense,” since “[t]he constitutional prohibition against 'double jeopardy’ was designed to protect an individual from being subjected to the hazards of trial and possible conviction more than once for an alleged offense.” Green v. United States, 355 U. S. 184, 187 (1957); see Serfass v. United States, 420 U. S. 377, 387-388 (1975); United States v. Jorn, 400 U. S. 470, 479 (1971).
Nonetheless, as the discussion in Part II, supra, indicates, our past holdings do not appear consistent with what we believe the Double Jeopardy Clause commands. A close reexamination of those precedents, however, persuades us that they have not properly construed the Clause, and accordingly should no longer be followed.
Reconsideration must begin with Bryan v. United States. The brief and somewhat cursory examination of the double jeopardy issue there was limited to stating that “ ‘where the accused successfully seeks review of a conviction, there is no double jeopardy upon a new trial/ ” 338 U. S., at 560, citing Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber, 329 U. S. 459, 462 (1947), and Trono v. United States, 199 U. S. 521, 533-534 (1905). These two cited authorities, which represent the totality of the Court’s analysis, add little, if anything, toward resolving the double jeopardy problem presented by Bryan. Resweber involved facts completely unrelated to evidentiary insufficiency. There, in what were admittedly “unusual circumstances,” 329 U. S., at 461, the Court decided that a State would be allowed another chance to carry out the execution of one properly convicted and under sentence of death after an initial attempted electrocution failed due to some mechanical difficulty. In passing, the opinion stated: “But where the accused successfully seeks review of a conviction, there is no double jeopardy upon a new trial. United States v. Ball, 163 U. S. 662, 672.” Id., at 462. Trono made a similar comment, citing Ball for the proposition that “if the judgment of conviction be reversed on [the defendant’s] own appeal, he cannot avail himself of the once-in-jeopardy provision as a bar to a new trial of the offense for which he was convicted.” 199 U. S., at 533-534.
The common, ancestor of these statements in Resweber and Trono, then, is United States v. Ball, which provides a logical starting point for unraveling the conceptual confusion arising from Bryan and the cases which have followed in its wake. This is especially true since Ball appears to represent the first instance in which this Court considered in any detail the double jeopardy implications of an appellate reversal. North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U. S. 711, 719-720 (1969).
Ball came before the Court twice, the first occasion being on writ of error from federal convictions for murder. On this initial review, those defendants who had been found guilty obtained a reversal of their convictions due to a fatally defective indictment. On remand after appeal, the trial court dismissed the flawed indictment and procéeded to retry the defendants on a new indictment. They were again convicted and the defendants came once more to this Court, arguing that their second trial was barred because of former jeopardy. The Court rejected this plea in. a brief statement:
“[A] defendant, who procures a judgment against him upon an indictment to be set aside, may be tried anew upon the same indictment, or upon another indictment, for the same offence of which he had been convicted. Hopt v. Utah, 104 U. S. 631; 110 U. S. 574; 114 U. S. 488; 120 U. S. 430; Regina v. Drury, 3 Cox Crim. Cas. 544; S. C. 3 Car. & Kirw. 193; Commonwealth v. Gould, 12 Gray, 171.” 163 U. S., at 672.
The reversal in Ball was therefore based not on insufficiency of evidence but rather on trial error, i. e., failure to dismiss a faulty indictment. Moreover, the cases cited as authority by Ball were ones involving trial errors.
We have no doubt that Ball was correct in allowing a new trial to rectify trial error:
"The principle that [the Double Jeopardy Clause] does not preclude the Government’s retrying a defendant whose conviction is set aside because of an error in the proceedings leading to conviction is a well-established part of our constitutional jurisprudence.” United States v. Tateo, 377 U. S. 463, 465 (1964) (emphasis supplied).
See United States v. Wilson, 420 U. S. 332, 341 n. 9 (1975); Forman, 361 U. S., at 425. As we have seen in Part II, supra, the cases which have arisen since Ball generally do not distinguish between reversals due to trial error and those resulting from evidentiary insufficiency. We believe, however, that the failure to make this distinction has contributed substantially to the present state of conceptual confusion existing in this area of the law. Consequently, it is important to consider carefully the respective roles of these two types of reversals in double jeopardy analysis.
Various rationales have been advanced to support the policy of allowing retrial to correct trial error, but in our view the most reasonable justification is that advanced by Toteo, supra, at 466:
“It would be a high price indeed for society to pay were every accused granted immunity from punishment because of any defect sufficient to constitute reversible error in the proceedings leading to conviction.”
See Wilson, supra, at 343-344, n. 11; Wade v. Hunter, 336 U. S. 684, 688-689 (1949). In short, reversal for trial error, as distinguished from evidentiary insufficiency, does not constitute a decision to the effect that the government has failed to prove its case. As such, it implies nothing with respect to the guilt or innocence of the defendant. Rather, it is a determination that a defendant has been convicted through a judicial process which is defective in some fundamental respect, e. g., incorrect receipt or rejection of evidence, incorrect instructions, or prosecutorial misconduct. When this occurs, the accused has a strong interest in obtaining a fair readjudication of his guilt free from error, just as society maintains a valid concern for insuring that the guilty are punished. See Note, Double Jeopardy: A New Trial After Appellate Reversal for Insufficient Evidence, 31 U. Chi. L. Rev. 365, 370 (1964).
The same cannot be said when a defendant’s conviction has been overturned due to a failure of proof at trial, in which case the prosecution cannot complain of prejudice, for it has been given one fair opportunity to offer whatever proof it could assemble. Moreover, such an appellate reversal means that the government’s case was so lacking that it should not have even been submitted to the jury. Since we necessarily afford absolute- finality to a jury’s verdict of acquittal — no matter how erroneous its decision — it is difficult to conceive how society has any greater interest in retrying a defendant when, on review, it is decided as a matter of law that the jury could not properly have returned a verdict of guilty.
The importance of a reversal on grounds of evidentiary insufficiency for purposes of inquiry under the Double Jeopardy Clause is underscored by the fact that a federal court’s role in deciding whether a case should be considered by the jury is quite limited. Even the trial court, which has heard the testimony of witnesses firsthand, is not to weigh the evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses when it judges the merits of a motion for acquittal. See United States v. Wolfenbarger, 426 F. 2d 992, 994 (CA6 1970); United States v. Nelson, 419 F. 2d 1237, 1241 (CA9 1969); McClard v. United States, 386 F. 2d 495, 497 (CA8 1968); Curley v. United States, 81 U. S. App. D. C. 389, 392, 160 F. 2d 229, 232-233, cert. denied, 331 U. S. 837 (1947). The prevailing rule has long been that a district judge is to submit a case to the jury if the evidence and inferences therefrom most favorable to the prosecution would warrant the jury’s finding the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure § 467, pp. 259-260 (1969); e. g., Powell v. United States, 135 U. S. App. D. C. 254, 257, 418 F. 2d 470, 473 (1969); Crawford v. United States, 126 U. S. App. D. C. 156, 158, 375 F. 2d 332, 334 (1967). Obviously a federal appellate court applies no higher a standard; rather, it must sustain the verdict if there is substantial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, to uphold the jury’s decision. See Glasser v. United States, 315 U. S. 60, 80 (1942). While this is not the appropriate occasion to re-examine in detail the standards for appellate reversal on grounds of insufficient evidence, it is apparent that such a decision will be confined to cases where the prosecution’s failure is clear. Given the requirements for entry of a judgment of acquittal, the purposes of the Clause would be negated were we to afford the government an opportunity for the proverbial “second bite at the apple.”
In our view it makes no difference that a defendant has sought a new trial as one of his remedies, or even as the sole remedy. It cannot be meaningfully said that a person “waives” his right to a judgment of acquittal by moving for a new trial. See Green v. United States, 355 U. S., at 191-198. Moreover, as Forman, 361 U. S., at 425, has indicated, an appellate court is authorized by § 2106 to “go beyond the particular relief sought” in order to provide that relief which would be “just under the circumstances.” Since we hold today that the Double Jeopardy Clause precludes a second trial once the reviewing court has found the evidence legally insufficient, the only “just” remedy available for that court is the direction of a judgment of acquittal. To the extent that our prior decisions suggest that by moving for a new trial, a defendant waives his right to a judgment of acquittal on the basis of evidentiary insufficiency, those cases are overruled.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Mr. Justice Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Petitioner did not file a post-trial motion for judgment of acquittal, which he was entitled to do under Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 29 (c).
Although the Court of Appeals did not cite Davis v. United States, 160 U. S. 469 (1895), that decision would require this allocation of burdens.
Title 28 U. S. C. § 2106 provides:
“The Supreme Court or any other court of appellate jurisdiction may affirm, modify, vacate, set aside or reverse any judgment, decree, or order of a court lawfully brought before it for review, and may remand the cause and direct the entry of such appropriate judgment, decree, or order, or require such further proceedings to be had as may be just under the circumstances.”
There is no claim in this case that the trial court committed error by excluding prosecution evidence which, if received, would have rebutted any claim of evidentiary insufficiency.
When a district court determines, at the close of either side’s case, that the evidence is insufficient, it “shall order the entry of [a] judgment of acquittal . . . .” Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 29; see C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure § 462, p. 245 (1969).
We recognize that under the terms of the remand in this case the District Court might very well conclude, after “a balancing of the equities,” that a second trial should not be held. Nonetheless, where the Double Jeopardy Clause is applicable, its sweep is absolute. There are no “equities” to be balanced, for the Clause has declared a constitutional policy, based on grounds which are not open to judicial examination.
Trono arose from a murder prosecution in the Philippines. After a nonjury trial the defendants were acquitted of the crime of murder, but were convicted of the lesser included offense of assault. They appealed to the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands, which reversed the judgment and entered convictions for murder, increasing their sentences as well. This Court affirmed, although “it seems apparent that a majority of the Court was unable to agree on any common ground for the conclusion that an appeal of a lesser offense destroyed a defense of a former jeopardy on a greater offense for which the defendant had already been acquitted.” Green v. United States, 355 U. S. 184, 187 (1957). Green expressly confined the Trono decision to “its peculiar factual setting,” namely, an interpretation of a “statutory provision against double jeopardy pertaining to the Philippine Islands.” 355 U. S., at 187; see Price v. Georgia, 398 U. S. 323, 327-328, n. 3 (1970).
Hopt v. Utah, 120 U. S. 430 (1887), was the last of four appeals by a defendant from a murder conviction in the Territory of Utah. On the first three appeals the convictions were reversed and new trials ordered because of trial errors, e. g., improper instruction, 104 U. S. 631 (1882) ; absence of the accused during a portion of the trial, improper hearsay testimony received, and prejudicial instruction, 110 U. S. 574 (1884); and inadequate record due to failure to record jury instructions, 114 U. S. 488 (1885). No claim of evidentiary insufficiency was sustained by the Court, and indeed no discussion of double jeopardy appears. Commonwealth v. Gould, 78 Mass. 171 (1858), was a state case in which a defendant was ordered tried on a superseding indictment, after the original indictment had been challenged. Finally, in the English case, Queen v. Drury, 3 Cox Crim. Cas. 544, 175 Eng. Rep. 516 (Q. B. 1849), the defendants had been given an improper sentence after being found guilty at a trial to which no other error was assigned. The court allowed a retrial, saying:
“A man who has been tried, convicted and attainted on an insufficient indictment, or on a record erroneous in any other part, is in so much jeopardy literally that punishment may be lawfully inflicted on him, unless the attainder be reversed in a Court of Error; and yet when that is done, he may certainly be indicted again for the same offense, and the rule would be held to apply, that he had never been in jeopardy under the former indictment.” Id., at 546, 175 Eng. Rep., at 520.
It has been suggested, for example, that an appeal from a conviction amounts to a “waiver” of double jeopardy protections, see Trono v. United States, 199 U. S. 521, 533 (1905); but see Oreen, swpra, at 191-198; or that the appeal somehow continues the jeopardy which attached at the first trial, see Price v. Georgia, supra, at 326; but see Breed v. Jones, 421 U. S. 519, 534 (1975).
In holding the evidence insufficient to sustain guilt, an appellate court determines that the prosecution has failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See American Tobacco Co. v. United States, 328 U. S. 781, 787 n. 4 (1946).
When the basic issue before the appellate court concerns the sufficiency of the Government’s proof of a defendant’s sanity (as it did here), a reviewing court should be most wary of disturbing the jury verdict:
“There may be cases where the facts adduced as to the existence and impact of an accused’s mental condition may be so overwhelming as to require a judge to conclude that no reasonable juror could entertain a reasonable doubt. But in view of the complicated nature of the decision to be made — intertwining moral, legal, and medical judgments — it will require an unusually strong showing to induce us to reverse a conviction because the judge left the critical issue of criminal responsibility with the jury.” King v. United States, 125 U. S. App. D. C. 318, 324, 372 F. 2d 383, 389 (1967) (footnote omitted).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The 2010 census showed an enormous increase in Texas’ population, with over four million new residents. That growth required the State to redraw its electoral districts for the United States Congress, the State Senate, and the State House of Representatives, in order to comply with the Constitution’s one-person, one-vote rule. See Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U. S. 461, 488, n. 2 (2003). The State also had to create new districts for the four additional congressional seats it received.
Texas is a “covered jurisdiction” under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. See 79 Stat. 439, 42 U. S. C. § 1973c(a); 28 CFR pt. 51, App. (2011). Section 5 suspends all changes to a covered jurisdiction’s election procedures, including district lines, until those changes are submitted to and approved by a three-judge United States District Court for the District of Columbia, or the Attorney General. See Northwest Austin Municipal Util. Dist. No. One v. Holder, 557 U. S. 193, 198 (2009). This process, known as preclearance, requires the covered jurisdiction to demonstrate that its proposed change “neither has the purpose nor will have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color.” §1973c(a). This Court has been emphatic that a new electoral map cannot be used to conduct an election until it has been precleared. See, e. g., Clark v. Roemer, 500 U. S. 646, 652 (1991).
The day after completing its new electoral plans, Texas submitted them to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for preclearance. The preclearance process remains ongoing. Texas was unsuccessful in its bid for summary judgment, and a trial is scheduled in the coming weeks. Meanwhile, various plaintiffs — appellees here— brought suit in Texas, claiming that the State’s newly enacted plans violate the United States Constitution and § 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Appellees alleged, inter alia, that Texas’ enacted plans discriminate against Latinos and African-Americans and dilute their voting strength, notwithstanding the fact that Latinos and African-Americans accounted for three-quarters of Texas’ population growth since 2000. A three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas was convened. See 28 U. S. C. § 2284. That court heard argument and held a trial with respect to the plaintiffs’ claims, but withheld judgment pending resolution of the preclearance process in the D. C. court. Cf. Branch v. Smith, 538 U. S. 254, 283-285 (2003) (Kennedy, J., concurring).
As Texas’ 2012 primaries approached, it became increasingly likely that the State’s newly enacted plans would not receive preclearance in time for the 2012 elections. And the State’s old district lines could not be used, because population growth had rendered them inconsistent with the Constitution’s one-person, one-vote requirement. It thus fell to the District Court in Texas to devise interim plans for the State’s 2012 primaries and elections. See Connor v. Finch, 431 U. S. 407, 414-415 (1977). After receiving proposals from the parties and holding extensive hearings, that court issued its interim plans. The court unanimously agreed on an interim State Senate plan, but Judge Smith dissented with respect to the congressional and State House plans. Texas asked this Court to stay the interim plans pending an appeal, arguing that they were unnecessarily inconsistent with the State’s enacted plans. This Court granted the stay and noted probable jurisdiction. Post, p. 1090.
Redistricting is “primarily the duty and responsibility of the State.” Chapman v. Meier, 420 U. S. 1, 27 (1975). The failure of a State’s newly enacted plan to gain preclearance prior to an upcoming election does not, by itself, require a court to take up the state legislature’s task. That is because, in most circumstances, the State’s last enacted plan simply remains in effect until the new plan receives preclearance. But if an intervening event — most commonly, as here, a census — renders the current plan unusable, a court must undertake the “unwelcome obligation” of creating an interim plan. Connor, supra, at 415. Even then, the plan already in effect may give sufficient structure to the court’s endeavor. Where shifts in a State’s population have been relatively small, a court may need to make only minor or obvious adjustments to the State’s existing districts in order to devise an interim plan.
But here the scale of Texas’ population growth appears to require sweeping changes to the State’s current districts. In areas where population shifts are so large that no semblance of the existing plan’s district lines can be used, that plan offers little guidance to a court drawing an interim map. The problem is perhaps most obvious in adding new congressional districts: The old plan gives no suggestion as to where those new districts should be placed. In addition, experience has shown the difficulty of defining neutral legal principles in this area, for redistricting ordinarily involves criteria and standards that have been weighed and evaluated by the elected branches in the exercise of their political judgment. See, e.g., Miller,v. Johnson, 515 U. S. 900, 915-916 (1995); White v. Weiser, 412 U. S. 783, 795-796 (1973). Thus, if the old state districts were the only source to which a district court could look, it would be forced to make the sort of policy judgments for which courts are, at best, ill suited.
To avoid being compelled to make such otherwise stand-ardless decisions, a district court should take guidance from the State’s recently enacted plan in drafting an interim plan. That plan reflects the State’s policy judgments on where to place new districts and how to shift existing ones in response to massive population growth. This Court has observed before that “faced with the necessity of drawing district lines by judicial order, a court, as a general rule, should be guided by the legislative policies underlying” a state plan — even one that was itself unenforceable — “to the extent those policies do not lead to violations of the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act.” Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U. S. 74, 79 (1997) (holding that the District Court properly declined to defer to a precleared plan that used race as a predominant factor). For example, in White, supra, an equal population challenge, this Court reversed a District Court’s choice of interim plan and required the District Court to choose a plan more closely resembling an enacted state plan, even though the state plan itself had been held to violate the one-person, one-vote principle. Similarly, in Upham v. Seamon, 456 U. S. 37 (1982) (per curiam), although the state plan as a whole had been denied § 5 preclearance, this Court directed a District Court to “defer to the legislative judgments the [state] plans reflect,” insofar as they involved districts found to meet the preclearance standard. Id., at 40-41. See also Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U. S. 124, 160-161 (1971) (equal protection challenge).
Section 5 prevents a state plan from being implemented if it has not been precleared. But that does not mean that the plan is of no account or that the policy judgments it reflects can be disregarded by a district court drawing an interim plan. On the contrary, the state plan serves as a starting point for the district court. It provides important guidance that helps ensure that the district court appropriately confines itself to drawing interim maps that comply with the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act, without displacing legitimate state policy judgments with the court’s own preferences.
A district court making such use of a State’s plan must, of course, take care not to incorporate into the interim plan any legal defects in the state plan. See Abrams, supra, at 85-86; White, supra, at 797. Where a State’s plan faces challenges under the Constitution or § 2 of the Voting Rights Act, a district court should still be guided by that plan, except to the extent those legal challenges are shown to have a likelihood of success on the merits. Plaintiffs seeking a preliminary injunction of a statute must normally demonstrate that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their challenge to that law. See Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U. S. 7, 20 (2008). There is no reason that plaintiffs seeking to defeat the policies behind a State’s redistricting legislation should not also have to meet that standard. And because the local district court — here, the District Court for the Western District of Texas — will ultimately decide the merits of claims under §2 and the Constitution, it is well equipped to apply that familiar standard.
The calculus with respect to §5 challenges is somewhat different. Where a State has sought preclearance in the District Court for the District of Columbia, § 5 allows only that court to determine whether the state plan complies with § 5. Consistent with that design, we have made clear that other district courts may not address the merits of § 5 challenges. See, e. g., Perkins v. Matthews, 400 U. S. 379, 385 (1971). The local district court drafting an interim plan must therefore be careful not to prejudge the merits of the preclearance proceedings. The court should presume neither that a State’s effort to preclear its plan will succeed nor that it will fail.
The need to avoid prejudging the merits of preclearance is satisfied by taking guidance from a State’s policy judgments unless they reflect aspects of the state plan that stand a reasonable probability of failing to gain § 5 preclearance. And by “reasonable probability” this Court means in this context that the §5 challenge is not insubstantial. That standard ensures that a district court is not deprived of important guidance provided by a state plan due to § 5 challenges that have no reasonable probability of success but still respects the jurisdiction and prerogative of those responsible for the preclearance determination. And the reasonable probability standard adequately balances the unique preclearance scheme with the State’s sovereignty and a district court’s need for policy guidance in constructing an interim map. This Court recently noted the “serious constitutional questions” raised by § 5’s intrusion on state sovereignty. Northwest Austin, 557 U. S., at 204. Those concerns would only be exacerbated if § 5 required a district court to wholly ignore the State’s policies in drawing maps that will govern a State’s elections, without any reason to believe those state policies are unlawful.
Appellees, however, contend that § 5 demands exactly that. In their view, this Court’s precedents require district courts to ignore any state plan that has not received §5 preclearance. But the cases upon which appellees rely hold only that a district court may not adopt an unprecleared plan as its own. See Lopez v. Monterey County, 519 U. S. 9 (1996); McDaniel v. Sanchez, 452 U. S. 130 (1981). They say nothing about whether a district court may take guidance from the lawful policies incorporated in such a plan for aid in drawing an interim map. Indeed, in Upham this Court ordered a District Court to defer to the unobjectionable aspects of a State’s plan even though that plan had already been denied preclearance.
In this litigation, the District Court stated that it had “giv[en] effect to as much of the policy judgments in the Legislature’s enacted map as possible.” 1 App. 182. At the same time, however, the court said that it was required to draw an “independent map” following “neutral principles that advance the interest of the collective public good.” Id., at 169-170. In the court’s view, it “was not required to give any deference to the Legislature’s enacted plan,” and it instead applied principles that it determined “place the interests of the citizens of Texas first.” Id., at 171. To the extent the District Court exceeded its mission to draw interim maps that do not violate the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act, and substituted its own concept of “the collective public good” for the Texas Legislature’s determination of which policies serve “the interests of the citizens of Texas,” the court erred.
In proclaiming its ability to draw an interim map “without regard to political considerations,” the District Court relied heavily on Balderas v. Texas, No. 6:01cvl58, 2001 U. S. Dist. LEXIS 25740 (ED Tex., Nov. 14, 2001) (per curiam), summarily aff’d, 536 U. S. 919 (2002). 1 App. 182. But in Bald-eras there was no recently enacted state plan to which the District Court could turn. Without the benefit of legislative guidance in making distinctly legislative policy judgments, the Balderas court was perhaps compelled to design an interim map based on its own notion of the public good. Because the District Court here had the benefit of a recently enacted plan to assist it, the court had neither the need nor the license to cast aside that vital aid.
Some specific aspects of the District Court’s plans seem to pay adequate attention to the State’s policies, others do not, and the propriety of still others is unclear. For example, in drawing State House districts in north and east Texas, the District Court closely followed the State’s policies. See 1 App. 173; 5 id., at 25-26. Although Texas’ entire State House plan is challenged in the § 5 proceedings, there is apparently no serious allegation that the district lines in north and east Texas have a discriminatory intent or effect. 1 id., at 187, n. 4. The District Court was thus correct to take guidance from the State’s plan in drawing the interim map for those regions. But the court then altered those districts to achieve de minimis population variations — even though there was no claim that the population variations in those districts were unlawful. Id., at 171, and n. 8. In the absence of any legal flaw in this respect in the State’s plan, the District Court had no basis to modify that plan.
The District Court also erred in refusing to split voting precincts (called “voter tabulation districts” in Texas) in drawing the interim plans. Id., at 90,102-103. That choice alone prevented the District Court from following the lead of Texas’ enacted plan — which freely splits precincts — in many areas where there were no legal challenges to the plan’s details. See id., at 102-103, 116, n. 24. The District Court was apparently motivated by a well-intentioned desire to save Texas the time and expense of reconfiguring precincts, and to ensure that the court’s interim plan could be implemented in time for the upcoming election. Id., at 90, 102-103,109. But the State’s plan accepted the costs of splitting precincts in order to accomplish other goals, and Texas law expressly allows recasting precincts when redistricting. See Tex. Elec. Code Ann. §42.032 (West 2010). If a State has chosen to accept the burden of changing its precincts, and its decision to do so is otherwise lawful, there is no warrant for a district court to ignore the State’s decision. Of course, in these cases it may well be that Texas will reexamine this issue in light of the exigencies caused by the impending election.
The District Court also appears to have unnecessarily ignored the State’s plans in drawing certain individual districts. For example, the District Court drew an interim District 77 that resembles neither the State’s newly enacted plan, nor the previous plan in effect prior to the 2010 census. The court said that it did so in response to alleged constitutional violations. 1 App. 174-175. But the court did not say that those allegations were plausible, much less likely to succeed. Nor did the District Court rely on a finding that the relevant aspects of the state plan stood a reasonable probability of failing to gain § 5 preclearance, see supra, at 395. Without such a determination, the District Court had no basis for drawing a district that does not resemble any legislatively enacted plan.
The court’s approach in drawing other districts was unclear. The interim plan’s Congressional District 33, for example, disregards aspects of the State’s plan that appear to be subject to strong challenges in the § 5 proceeding. See 3 App. 600-601; 5 id., at 12-14. That much seems appropriate, but there are grounds for concern with the path the District Court followed from there. The court’s order suggests that it may have intentionally drawn District 33 as a “minority coalition opportunity district” in which the court expected two different minority groups to band together to form an electoral majority. 1 id., at 147. The order is somewhat ambiguous on this point — some portions suggest that the court deliberately designed such a district, other parts suggest that it drew the district solely as a response to population growth in the area. Compare id., at 146-147 (“Because much of the growth that occurred in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex was attributable to minorities, the new district 33 was drawn as a minority coalition opportunity district”), with id., at 144 (“The Court has nowhere expressly sought to increase the performance of any opportunity district above benchmark”). If the District Court did set out to create a minority coalition district, rather than drawing a district that simply reflected population growth, it had no basis for doing so. Cf. Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U. S. 1, 13-15 (2009) (plurality opinion).
Because it is unclear whether the District Court for the Western District of Texas followed the appropriate standards in drawing interim maps for the 2012 Texas elections, the orders implementing those maps are vacated, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The judgment shall issue forthwith.
It is so ordered.
Section 2 prohibits “any State or political subdivision” from imposing any electoral practice “which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.” 42 U. S. C. § 1973(a).
This Court has stated that court-drawn maps are held to a higher standard of acceptable population variation than legislatively enacted maps. See, e. g., Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U. S. 74, 98 (1997). But this Court has also explained that those “stricter standard[s]” are not triggered where a district court incorporates unchallenged portions of a State’s map into an interim map. Upham v. Seamon, 456 U. S. 37, 42-43 (1982) (per curiam).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is reversed. No. 549, Giordenello v. United States, ante, p. 480, decided this day.
Mr. Justice Burton, Mr. Justice Clark, and Mr. Justice Whittaker dissent for the reasons set forth in the dissenting opinion in No. 549, decided this day.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns the scope of two criminal statutes enacted by Congress to enforce the Thirteenth Amendment. Title 18 U. S. C. §241 prohibits conspiracy to interfere with an individual’s Thirteenth Amendment right to be free from “involuntary servitude.” Title 18 U. S. C. § 1584 makes it a crime knowingly and willfully to hold another person “to involuntary servitude.” We must determine the meaning of “involuntary servitude” under these two statutes.
I
In 1983, two mentally retarded men were found laboring on a Chelsea, Michigan, dairy farm in poor health, in squalid conditions, and in relative isolation from the rest of society. The operators of the farm — Ike Kozminski, his wife Marga-rethe, and their son John — were charged with violating 18 U. S. C. §241 by conspiring to “injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate” the two men in the free exercise and enjoyment of their federal right to be free from involuntary servitude. The Kozminskis were also charged with knowingly holding, or aiding and abetting in the holding of, the two men to involuntary servitude in violation of 18 U. S. C. §1584 and §2 The case was tried before a jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The Government’s evidence is summarized below.
The victims, Robert Fulmer and Louis Molitoris, have intelligence quotients of 67 and 60 respectively.'Though chronologically in their 60’s during the period in question, they viewed the world and responded to authority as would someone of 8 to 10 years. Margarethe Kozminski picked Fulmer up one evening in 1967 while he was walking down the road, and brought him to work at one of the Kozminski farms. He was working on another farm at the time, but Mrs. Kozminski simply left a note telling his former employer that he had gone. Molitoris was living on the streets of Ann Arbor, Michigan, in the early 1970’s when Ike Kozminski brought him to work on the Chelsea farm. He had previously spent several years at a state mental hospital.
Fulmer and Molitoris worked on the Kozminskis’ dairy farm seven days a week, often 17 hours a day, at first for $15 per week and eventually for no pay. The Kozminskis subjected the.two men to physical and verbal abuse for failing to do their work and instructed herdsmen employed at the farm to do The same. The Kozminskis directed Fulmer and Molitoris not to leave the farm, and on several occasions when the men did leave,' the Kozminskis or their employees brought the men back and discouraged them from leaving again. On one occasion, John Kozminski threatened Molitoris with institutionalization if he did not do as he was told.
The Kozminskis failed to provide Fulmer and Molitoris with adequate nutrition, housing, clothing, or medical care. They directed the two men not to talk to others and discouraged the men from contacting their relatives. At the same time, the Kozminskis discouraged relatives, neighbors, farm hands, and visitors from contacting Fulmer and Molitoris. Fulmer and Molitoris asked others for help in leaving the farm, and eventually a herdsman hired by the Kozminskis was concerned about the two men and notified county officials! of their condition. County officials assisted Fulmer and Molitoris in leaving the farm and placed them in an adult foster care home.
In attempting to persuade the jury that the Kozminskis held their victims in involuntary servitude, the Government did not rely solely on evidence regarding their use or threatened use of physical force or the threat of institutionalization. Rather, the Government argued that the Kozminskis had used various coercive measures — including denial of pay, subjection to substandard living conditions, and isolation from others — to cause the victims to believe they had no alternative but to work on the farm. The Government argued that Fulmer and Molitoris were “psychological hostages” whom the Kozminskis had “brainwash[ed]” into serving them. Tr. 15, 23.
At the conclusion of the evidence, the District Court instructed the jurors that in order to convict the Kozminskis of conspiracy under §241, they must find (1) the existence of a conspiracy including the Kozminskis, (2) that the purpose of the conspiracy was to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate a United States citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of a federal right to be free from involuntary servitude, and (3) that one of the conspirators knowingly committed an overt act in furtherance of that purpose. The court further instructed the jury that §1584 required the Government to prove' (1) that the Kozminskis held the victims in involuntary servitude, (2) that they acted knowingly or willfully, and (3) that their actions were a necessary cause of the victims’ decision to continue working for them. The court delivered the following instruction on the meaning of involuntary servitude under both statutes:
“Involuntary servitude consists of two terms.
“Involuntary means ‘done contrary to or without choice’ — ‘compulsory’ — ‘not subject to control of the will.’
“Servitude means ‘[a] condition in which a person lacks liberty especially to determine one’s course of action or ■way of life’ — ‘slavery’ — ‘the state of being subject to a master.’
“Involuntary servitude involves a condition of having some of the incidents of slavery.
“It may include situations in which persons are forced to return to employment by law.
“It may also include persons who are physically restrained by guards from leaving employment.
“It may also include situations involving either physical and other coercion, or a combination thereof, used to ■detain persons in employment.
' “In other words, based on all the evidence it will be for ;you to determine if there was a means of compulsion.used, sufficient in kind and degree, to subject a person having the same general station in life as the alleged victims to believe they had no reasonable means of escape and no choice except to remain in the service of the employer.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 109a-110a.
So instructed, the jury found Ike and Margarethe Kozmin-ski guilty of violating both statutes. John Kozminski was convicted only on the § 241 charge. Each of the Kozminskis was placed on probation for two years. In addition, Ike Koz-minski was fined $20,000 and was ordered to pay $6,190.80 in restitution to each of the victims. John Kozminski was fined $10,000.
.A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the convictions. App.- to Pet. for Cert. 72a. After rehearing the case en banc, however, the Court of Appeals reversed the convictions and remanded the case for a new trial. 821 F. 2d 1186 (1987). The majority concluded that the District Court’s definition of involuntary servitude, which would bring cases involving general psychological coercion within the reach of § 241 and § 1584, was too broad. The court held that involuntary servitude exists only when •
“(a) the servant believes that he or she has no viable alternative but to perform service for the master (b) because of (1) the master’s use or threatened use of physical force, or (2) the master’s use or threatened use of state-imposed legal coercion (i. e., peonage), or (3) the master’s use of fraud or deceit to obtain or maintain services where the servant is a minor, an immigrant or one who is mentally incompetent.” 821 F. 2d, at 1192 (footnote omitted).
The dissenting judges charged that the majority had “rewritten rather than interpreted” § 1584. Id., at 1213. They argued that involuntary servitude may arise from whatever means the defendant intentionally uses to subjugate the will of the victim so as to render the victim “ ‘incapable of making a rational choice.’” Id., at 1212-1213 (quoting United States v. Shackney, 333 F. 2d 475, 488 (CA2 1964) (Dimock, J., concurring)).
The Court of Appeals’ definition of involuntary servitude conflicts with the definitions adopted by other Courts of Appeals. Writing for the Second Circuit in United States v. Shackney, supra, Judge Friendly reasoned that
“a holding in involuntary servitude means to us action by the master causing the servant to have, or to believe he has, no way to avoid continued service or confinement,... not a situation where the servant knows he has a choice between continued service and freedom, even if the master has led him to believe that the choice may entail consequences that are exceedingly bad.” Id., at 486.
Accordingly, Judge Friendly concluded that § 1584 prohibits only “service compelled by law, by force or by the threat of continued confinement of some sort.” Id., at 487. See also United States v. Harris, 701 F. 2d 1095, 1100 (CA4 1983) (involuntary servitude exists under § 241 and § 1584 where labor is coerced by “threat of violence or confinement, backed sufficiently by deeds”); United States v. Bibbs, 564 F. 2d 1165, 1168 (CA5 1977) (involuntary servitude exists under § 1584 where the defendant places the victim “in such fear of physical harm that the victim is afraid to leave”). The Ninth Circuit, in contrast, has not limited the reach of § 1584 to cases involving physical force or legal sanction, but has concluded that
“[a] holding in involuntary servitude occurs when an individual coerces another into his service by improper or wrongful conduct that is intended to cause, and does cause, the other person to believe that he or she has no alternative but to perform labor.” United States v. Mussry, 726 F. 2d 1448, 1453 (1984).
See also United States v. Warren, 772 F. 2d 827, 833-834 (CA11 1985) (“Various forms of coercion may constitute a holding in involuntary servitude. The use, or threatened use, of physical force to create a climate of fear is the most grotesque example of such coercion”).
We granted the Government’s petition for a writ of certio-rari, 484 U. S. 894 (1987), to resolve this conflict among the Courts of Appeals on the meaning of involuntary servitude for the purpose of criminal prosecution under §241 and § 1584.'
II
Federal crimes are defined by Congress, and so long as Congress acts within its constitutional power in enacting a criminal statute, this Court must give effect to Congress’ expressed intention concerning the scope of conduct prohibited. See Dowling v. United States, 473 U. S. 207, 213, 214 (1985) (citing United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76, 95 (1820)). Congress’ power to enforce the Thirteenth Amendment by enacting § 241 and § 1584 is clear and undisputed. See U. S. Const., Arndt. 13, §2 (“Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation”); Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U. S. 88, 105 (1971). The scope of conduct prohibited by these statutes is therefore a matter of statutory construction.
The Court of Appeals reached its conclusions regarding the meaning of involuntary servitude under both § 241 and § 1584 based solely on its analysis of the language and history of § 1584. A reading of these statutes, however, reveals an obvious difference between them. Unlike § 1584, which by its terms prohibits holding to involuntary servitude, §241 prohibits conspiracies to interfere with rights secured “by the Constitution or laws of the United States,” and thus incorporates the prohibition of involuntary servitude contained in the Thirteenth Amendment. See United States v. Price, 383 U. S. 787, 805 (1966). The indictment in this casé, which was read to the jury, specifically charged the Kozminskis with conspiring to interfere with the “right and privilege secured... by the Constitution and laws of the United States to be free from involuntary servitude as provided by the Thirteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.” App. 177 (emphasis added). Thus, the indictment clearly specified a conspiracy to violate the Thirteenth Amendment. The indictment cannot be read to charge a conspiracy to violate § 1584 rather than the Thirteenth Amendment, because the criminal sanction imposed by § 1584 does not create any individual “right or privilege” as those words are used in §241. The Government has not conceded that the definition of involuntary servitude as used in the Thirteenth Amendment is limited by the meaning of the same phrase in § 1584. To the contrary, the Government argues (1) that the Thirteenth Amendment should be broadly construed, and (2) that Congress did not intend § 1584 to have a narrower scope. Brief for United States 22-32. The District Court defined involuntary servitude broadly under both § 241 and § 1584. The Court of Appeals reversed the convictions under both counts because it concluded that the definition of involuntary servitude given for each count was erroneous. Since the proper interpretation of each statute is squarely before us, we construe each statute separately to ascertain the conduct it prohibits.
A
Section 241 authorizes punishment when
“two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same.”
This Court interpreted the purpose and effect of § 241 over 20 years ago in United States v. Guest, 383 U. S. 745 (1966), and United States v. Price, supra. Section 241 creates no substantive rights, but prohibits interference with rights established by the Federal Constitution or laws and by decisions interpreting them. Guest, supra, at 754-755; Price, supra, at 803. Congress intended the statute to incorporate by reference a large body of potentially evolving federal law. This Court recognized, however, that a statute prescribing criminal punishment must be interpreted in a manner that provides a definite standard of guilt. The Court resolved the tension between these two propositions by construing §241 to prohibit only intentional interference with rights made specific either by the express terms of the Federal Constitution or laws or by decisions interpreting them. Price, supra, at 806, n. 20; Guest, supra, at 754-755. Cf. Screws v. United States, 325 U. S. 91, 102 (1945).
The Kozminskis were convicted under § 241 for conspiracy to interfere with the Thirteenth Amendment guarantee against involuntary servitude. Applying the analysis set out in Price and Guest, our task is to ascertain the precise definition of that crime by looking to the scope of the Thirteenth Amendment prohibition of involuntary servitude specified in our prior decisions.
The Thirteenth Amendment declares that “[njeither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” The Amendment is “self-executing without any ancillary legislation, so far as its terms are applicable to any existing state of circumstances,” Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S. 3, 20 (1883), and thus establishes a constitutional guarantee that is protected by §241. See Price, supra, at 805. The primary purpose of the Amendment was to abolish the institution of African slavery as it had existed in the United States at the time of the Civil War, but the Amendment was not limited to that purpose; the phrase “involuntary servitude” was intended to extend “to cover those forms of compulsory labor akin to African slavery which in practical operation would tend to produce like undesirable results.” Butler v. Perry, 240 U. S. 328, 332 (1916). See also Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 282 (1897); Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 69 (1873).
While the general spirit of the phrase “involuntary servitude” is easily comprehended, the exact range of conditions it prohibits is harder to define. The express exception of involuntary servitude imposed as a punishment for crime provides some guidance. The fact that the draf ters felt it necessary to exclude this situation indicates that they thought involuntary servitude includes at least situations in which the victim is compelled to work by law. Moreover, from the general intent to prohibit conditions “akin to African slavery,” see Butler v. Perry, supra, at 332-333, as well as the fact that the Thirteenth Amendment extends beyond state action, compare U. S. Const., Arndt. 14, §1, we readily can deduce an intent to prohibit compulsion through physical coercion.
This judgment is confirmed when we turn to our previous decisions construing the Thirteenth Amendment. Looking behind the broad statements of purpose to the actual holdings, we find that in every case in which this Court has found a condition of involuntary servitude, the victim had no available choice but to work or be subject to legal sanction. In Clyatt v. United States, 197 U. S. 207 (1905), for example, the Court recognized that peonage — a condition in which the victim is coerced by threat of legal sanction to work off a debt to a master — is involuntary servitude under the Thirteenth Amendment. Id., at 215, 218. Similarly, in United States v. Reynolds, 235 U. S. 133 (1914), the Court held that “[cjompulsion of... service by the constant fear of imprisonment under the criminal laws” violated “rights intended to be secured by the Thirteenth Amendment.” Id., at 146, 150. In that case the Court struck down a criminal surety system under which a person fined for a misdemeanor offense could contract to work for a surety who would, in turn, pay the convict’s fine to the State. The critical feature of the system was that that breach of the labor contract by the convict was a crime. The convict was thus forced to work by threat of criminal sanction. The Court has also invalidated state laws subjecting debtors to prosecution and criminal punishment for failing to perform labor after receiving an advance payment. Pollock v. Williams, 322 U. S. 4 (1944); Taylor v. Georgia, 315 U. S. 25 (1942); Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U. S. 219 (1911). The laws at issue in these cases made failure to perform services for which money had been obtained prima facie evidence of intent to defraud. The Court reasoned that “the State could not avail itself of the sanction of the criminal law to supply the compulsion [to enforce labor] any more than it could use or authorize the use of physical force.” Bailey, supra, at 244.
Our precedents reveal that not all situations in which labor is compelled by physical coercion or force of law violate the Thirteenth Amendment. By its terms the Amendment excludes involuntary servitude imposed as legal punishment for a crime. Similarly, the Court has recognized that the prohibition against involuntary servitude does not prevent the State or Federal Governments from compelling their citizens, by threat of criminal sanction, to perform certain civic duties. See Hurtado v. United States, 410 U. S. 578, 589, n. 11 (1973) (jury service); Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U. S. 366, 390 (1918) (military service); Butler v. Perry, supra (roadwork). Moreover, in Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275 (1897), the Court observed that the Thirteenth Amendment was not intended to apply to “exceptional” cases well established in the common law at the time of the Thirteenth Amendment, such as “the right of parents and guardians to the custody of their minor children or wards,” id., at 282, or laws preventing sailors who contracted to work on vessels from deserting their ships. Id., at 288.
Putting aside such exceptional circumstances, none of which are present in this case, our precedents clearly define a Thirteenth Amendment prohibition of involuntary servitude enforced by the use or threatened use of physical or legal coercion. The guarantee of freedom from involuntary servitude has never been interpreted specifically to prohibit compulsion of labor by other means, such as psychological coercion. We draw no conclusions from this historical survey about the potential scope of the Thirteenth Amendment. Viewing the Amendment, however, through the narrow window that is appropriate in applying §241, it is clear that the Government cannot prove a conspiracy to violate rights secured by the Thirteenth Amendment without proving that the conspiracy involved the use or threatened use of physical or legal coercion.
B
Section 1584 authorizes criminal punishment of
“[w]hoever knowingly and willfully holds to involuntary servitude or sells into any condition of involuntary servitude any other person for any term.”
This is our first occasion to consider the reach of this statute. The pivotal phrase, “involuntary servitude,” clearly was borrowed from the Thirteenth Amendment. Congress’ use of the constitutional language in a statute enacted pursuant to its constitutional authority to enforce the Thirteenth Amendment guarantee makes the conclusion that Congress intended the phrase to have the same meaning in both places logical, if not inevitable. In the absence of any contrary indications, we therefore give effect to congressional intent by construing “involuntary servitude” in a way consistent with the understanding of the Thirteenth Amendment that prevailed at the time of § 1584’s enactment. See United States v. Shackney, 333 F. 2d 475 (CA2 1964) (Friendly, J.).
Section 1584 was enacted as part of the 1948 revision to the Criminal Code. At that time, all of the Court’s decisions identifying conditions of involuntary servitude had involved compulsion of services through the use or threatened use of physical or legal coercion. See, e. g., Clyatt v. United States, supra; United States v. Reynolds, supra; Pollock v. Williams, supra; Bailey v. Alabama, supra. By employing the constitutional language, Congress apparently was focusing on the prohibition of comparable conditions.
The legislative history of § 1584 confirms this conclusion and undercuts the Government’s claim that Congress had a broader concept of involuntary servitude in mind. No significant legislative history accompanies the 1948 enactment of § 1584; the statute was adopted as part of a general revision of the Criminal Code. The 1948 version of § 1584 was a consolidation, however, of two earlier statutes: the Slave Trade statute, as amended in 1909, formerly 18 U. S. C. §423 (1940 ed.), and the 1874 Padrone statute, formerly 18 U. S. C. §446 (1940 ed.). There are some indications that § 1584 was intended to have the same substantive reach as these statutes. See, e. g., A. Holtzoff, Preface to Title 18 •U. S. C. A. (1969) (“In general, with a few exceptions, the Code does not attempt to change existing law”); Revision of Titles 18 and 28 of the United States Code: Hearings on H. R. 1600 and H. R. 2055 before Subcommittee No. 1 of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 13-14 (1947) (statement of advisory committee member Justin Miller). But see United States v. Shackney, supra, at 482 (viewing changes made in the course of consolidation as significant and § 1584 as positive law). Whether or not § 1584 was intended to track these earlier statutes exactly, it was most assuredly not intended to work a radical change in the law. We therefore review the legislative history of the Slave Trade statute and the Padrone statute to inform our construction of § 1584.
The original Slave Trade statute authorized punishment of persons who “hold, sell, or otherwise dispose of any... negro, mulatto, or person of colour, so brought [into the United States] as a slave, or to be held to service or labour.” Act of Apr. 20, 1818, ch. 91, § 6, 3 Stat. 452. This statute was one of several measures passed in the early 19th century for the purpose of ending the African slave trade. A 1909 amendment removed the racial restriction, extending the statute to the holding of “any person” as a slave. This revision, however, left unchanged that portion of the statute describing the condition under which such persons were held. See 42 Cong. Rec. 1114 (1908). The Government attempts to draw a contrary conclusion from a comment by Senator Heyburn to the effect that the 1909 amendment was intended to protect vulnerable people who were brought into the United States for labor or for immoral purposes. Id., at 1115. This comment is inconclusive, however. Other Senators expressly disagreed with the view that the elimination of the racial restriction changed the meaning of the word “slavery.” See id., at 1114-1115. Moreover, the 1909 reenactment of the Slave Trade statute was part of a general codification of the federal penal laws, which Senator Heyburn himself stated was “in no instance to change the practice of the law.” Id., at 2226. Thus, we conclude that nothing in the history of the Slave Trade statute suggests that it was intended to extend to conditions of servitude beyond those applied to slaves, i. e., physical or legal coercion.
The other precursor of § 1584, the Padrone statute, reflects a similarly limited scope. The “padrones” were men who took young boys away from their families in Italy, brought them to large cities in the United States, and put them to work as street musicians or beggars. Congress enacted the Padrone statute in 1874 “to prevent [this] practice of enslaving, buying, selling, or using Italian children.” 2 Cong. Rec. 4443 (1874) (Rep. Cessna). The statute provided that
“whoever shall knowingly and wilfully bring into the United States... any person inveigled or forcibly kidnapped in any other country, with intent to hold such person... in confinement or to any involuntary service, and whoever shall knowingly and wilfully sell, or cause to be sold, into any condition of involuntary servitude, any other person for any term whatever, and every person who shall knowingly and wilfully hold to involuntary service any person so sold and bought, shall be deemed guilty of a felony.” Act of June 23, 1874, ch. 464. 18 Stat. 251.
This statute, too, was aimed only at compulsion of service through physical or legal coercion. To be sure, use of the term “inveigled” indicated that the statute was intended to protect persons brought into this country by other means. But the statute drew a careful distinction between the manner in which persons were brought into the United States and the conditions in which they were subsequently held, which are expressly identified as “confinement” or “involuntary servitude.” Our conclusion that Congress believed these terms to be limited to situations involving physical or legal coercion is confirmed when we examine the actual physical conditions facing the victims of the padrone system. These young children were literally stranded in large, hostile cities in a foreign country. They were given no education or other assistance toward self-sufficiency. Without such assistance, without family, and without other sources of support, these children had no actual means of escaping the padrones’ service; they had no choice but to work for their masters or risk physical harm. The padrones took advantage of the special vulnerabilities of their victims, placing them in situations where they were physically unable to leave.
The history of the Padrone statute reflects Congress’ 'view that a victim’s age or special vulnerability may be relevant in determining whether a particular type or a certain degree of physical or legal coercion is sufficient to hold that person to involuntary servitude. For example, a child who is told he can go home late at night in the dark through a strange area may be subject to physical coercion that results in his staying, although a competent adult plainly would not be. Similarly, it is possible that threatening an incompetent with institutionalization or an immigrant with deportation could constitute the threat of legal coercion that induces involuntary servitude, even though such a threat made to an adult citizen of normal intelligence would be too implausible to produce involuntary servitude. But the Padrone statute does not support the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that involuntary servitude can exist absent the use or threatened use of physical or legal coercion to compel labor. Moreover, far from broadening the definition of involuntary servitude for immigrants, children, or mental incompetents, § 1584 eliminated any special distinction among, or protection of, special classes of victims.
Thus, the language and legislative history of § 1584 both indicate that its reach should be limited to cases involving the compulsion of services by the use or threatened use of physical or legal coercion. Congress chose to use the language of the Thirteenth Amendment in § 1584 and this was the scope of that constitutional provision at the time § 1584 was enacted.
c
The Government has argued that we should adopt a broad construction of “involuntary servitude,” which would prohibit the compulsion of services by any means that, from the victim’s point of view, either leaves the victim with no tolerable alternative but to serve the defendant or deprives the victim of the power of choice. Under this interpretation, involuntary servitude would include compulsion through psychological coercion as well as almost any other type of speech or conduct intentionally employed to persuade a reluctant person to work.
This interpretation would appear to criminalize a broad range of day-to-day activity. For example, the Government conceded at oral argument that, under its interpretation, §241 and § 1584 could be used.to punish a parent who coerced an adult son or daughter into working in the family business by threatening withdrawal of affection. Tr. of Oral Arg. 12. It has also been suggested that the Government’s construction would cover a political leader who uses charisma to induce others to work without pay or a religious leader who obtains personal services by means of religious indoctrination. See Brief in Opposition 4; Brief for the International Society for Krishna Consciousness of California, Inc., as Amicus Curiae 25. As these hypothetical suggest, the Government’s interpretation would delegate to prosecutors and juries the inherently legislative task of determining what type of coercive activities are so morally reprehensible that they should be punished as crimes. It would also subject individuals to the risk of arbitrary or discriminatory prosecution and conviction.
Moreover, as the Government would interpret the statutes, the type of coercion prohibited would depend entirely upon the victim’s state of mind. Under such a view, the statutes would provide almost no objective indication of the conduct or condition they prohibit, and thus would fail to provide fair notice to ordinary people who are required to conform their conduct to the law. The Government argues that any such difficulties are eliminated by a requirement that the defendant harbor a specific intent to hold the victim in involuntary servitude. But in light of the Government’s failure to give any objective content to its construction of the phrase “involuntary servitude,” this specific intent requirement amounts to little more than an assurance that the defendant sought to do “an unknowable something.” Screws v. United States, 325 U. S., at 105.
In short, we agree with Judge Friendly’s observation that
“[t]he most ardent believer in civil rights legislation might not think that cause would be advanced by permitting the awful machinery of the criminal law to be brought into play whenever an employee asserts that his will to quit has been subdued by a threat which seriously affects his future welfare but as to which he still has a choice, however painful.” United States v. Schackney, 333 F. 2d., at 487.
Accordingly, we conclude that Congress did not intend § 1584 to encompass the broad and undefined concept of involuntary servitude urged upon us by the Government.
Justice Brennan would hold that § 1584 prohibits not only the use or threatened use of physical or legal coercion, but also any means of coercion “that actually succeeds in reducing the victim to a condition of servitude resembling that in which slaves were held before the Civil War.” Post, at 962. This formulation would be useful if it were accompanied by a recognition that the use or threat of physical or legal coercion was a necessary incident of pre-Civil War slavery and thus of the “ ‘slavelike’ conditions of servitude Congress most clearly intended to eradicate.” Post, at 961. Instead, finding no objective factor to be necessary to a “slavelike condition,” Justice Brennan would delegate to prosecutors and juries the task of determining what working conditions are so oppressive as to amount to involuntary servitude.
Such a definition of involuntary servitude is theoretically -narrower than that advocated by the Government, but it suffers from the same flaws. The ambiguity in the phrase'“slavelike conditions” is not merely a question of degree, but instead concerns the very nature of the conditions prohibited. Although we can be sure that Congress intended to prohibit ‘“slavelike’ conditions of servitude,” we have no indication that Congress thought that conditions maintained by means either than by the use or threatened use of physical or legal coercion were “slavelike.” Whether other conditions are so intolerable that they, too, should be deemed to be involuntary is a value judgment that we think is best left for Congress.,
.Justice Stevens concludes that Congress intended to delegate to the Judiciary the inherently legislative task of defining “involuntary servitude” through case-by-case adjudication. Post, at 965. Neither the language nor the legislative history of § 1584 provides an adequate basis for such a conclusion. Reference to the Sherman Act does not advance Justice Stevens’ argument, for that Act does not authorize courts to develop standards for the imposition of criminal punishment. To the contrary, this Court determined that the objective standard to be used in deciding whether conduct violates the Sherman Act — the rule of reason — was evinced by the language and the legislative history of the Act. Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 221 U. S. 1, 60 (1911). It is one thing to recognize that some degree of uncertainty exists whenever judges and juries are called upon to apply substantive standards established by Congress; it would be quite another thing to tolerate the arbitrariness and unfairness of a legal system in which the judges would develop the standards for imposing criminal punishment on a case-by-case basis.
. Sound principles of statutory construction lead us to reject the amorphous definitions of involuntary servitude proposed by the Government and by Justices Brennan and Ste-VENS. By construing § 241 and § 1584 to prohibit only compulsion of services through physical or legal coercion, we adhere to the time-honored interpretive guideline that uncertainty concerning the ambit of criminal statutes should be resolved in favor of lenity. See, e. g., McNally v. United States, 483 U. S. 350 (1987); Dowling v. United States, 473 U. S
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Me. Chief Justice Buegee
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari in this case to decide whether a federal parolee imprisoned for a crime committed while on parole is constitutionally entitled to a prompt parole revocation hearing when a parole violator warrant is issued and lodged with the institution of his confinement but not served on him.
(1)
In 1962 petitioner was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona of the crime of rape on an Indian reservation, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1153. There was no appeal, and petitioner received a 10-year prison sentence. He was paroled in 1966 with almost six years remaining to be served. While on parole, petitioner shot and killed two persons on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation. He was convicted on a guilty plea of manslaughter as to one victim and second-degree murder as to the other, for violations of 18 U. S. C. § 1153; he received concurrent 10-year sentences for these two offenses. These crimes constituted obvious violations of the terms of petitioner’s 1966 parole. See 18 U. S. C. § 4203 (a) (1970 ed. and Supp. Y).
Soon after petitioner’s incarceration for the two homicides, the United States Board of Parole issued but did not execute a parole violator warrant; this was lodged with prison officials as a “detainer.” Petitioner requested the Board to execute the warrant immediately so that any imprisonment imposed for violation of his earlier parole under the rape conviction could run concurrently with his 1971 homicide sentences. The Board replied that it intended to execute the warrant only upon petitioner’s release from his second sentence. At its 1974 annual review of petitioner’s case, the Board reaffirmed its decision to allow the warrant to remain unexecuted.
Relying on Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471 (1972), petitioner began this federal habeas corpus action in January 1975, seeking dismissal of the parole violator warrant on the ground that he had been denied a prompt hearing at which the pending parole revocation issues could be aired.
The District Court dismissed the petition without awaiting a responsive pleading, stating:
“■[A] parole revocation hearing is not required until the parole violator warrant has been executed. The parole board is under no obligation to execute the warrant inasmuch as petitioner has been in custody on his 1971 manslaughter [and murder] sentence[s] since the time the warrant was issued and filed as a detainer against him.”
The Court of Appeals affirmed, relying on its earlier holding in Small v. Britton, 500 F. 2d 299 (CA10 1974), in which that court had held that an incarcerated parolee is deprived of no liberty interest by the lodging of a detainer against him, and is thus entitled to no due process safeguards unless and until the parole violator warrant is actually executed.
(2)
The Parole Commission and Reorganization Act, Pub. L. 94-233, 90 Stat. 219 et seq., was enacted shortly after we granted certiorari. The Act renamed the Board the Parole Commission and made other changes in federal parole procedures, principally to codify the Board’s existing practices. Throughout the progress of this case below, however, parole revocation procedures were controlled by the former statutes, 18 U. S. C. §§ 4205 and 4207. Under them, and the Board’s own regulations, 28 CFR § 2.53 (1975), it was the Board’s practice to issue a parole violator warrant as a matter of course whenever a federal parolee was convicted of a new offense. Under the former statute and regulations, if the subsequent sentence called for incarceration the warrant was lodged at the institution of confinement as a detainer, for possible later service. A parolee so confined was then notified of the issuance of the unserved warrant and given the opportunity to make a written response. Upon receipt of the response the Board was authorized, in its discretion, to conduct a dispositional interview designed to get the facts relevant to its revocation decision. The parolee could retain counsel for the interview and call witnesses. In lieu of an interview, the Board in its discretion could review the parolee’s case based on the record and the written response.
After review — or interview — the Board had three options for disposing of its parole violator warrant:
(a) It could execute the warrant immediately and take the parolee into custody. If parole was revoked at that stage, the remainder of the parolee’s original federal sentence, reinstated by the parole revocation, would run concurrently with the subsequent sentence from the time of execution of the warrant. 18 U. S. C. § 4205. Execution of the warrant deprived the parolee of any good-time credits he might have previously earned on his original sentence under 18 U. S. C. § 4161, and of credit for the time spent while on parole. 18 U. S. C. § 4205; 28 CFR § 2.51 (1975).
(b) The Board’s second option was to dismiss the warrant and detainer altogether, which operated as a decision not to revoke parole, and under which the parolee retained both his good-time credit and credit for the time spent on parole. Presumably dismissal of the warrant would reflect a Board decision that the violation of conditions of parole was not of such gravity as to justify revocation.
(c) Third, the Board was free to defer a final decision on parole revocation until expiration of the subsequent sentence, as it elected to do in this case; under this third option, the Board was authorized to execute the warrant, take the parolee into custody immediately upon his release, and then conduct a revocation hearing. Deferral of decision while permitting the warrant to stand unexecuted would operate to allow the original sentence to remain in the status it occupied at the time of the asserted parole violation, 18 U. S. C. § 4205; it would not deprive the parolee either of his good time or of the time spent on parole.
Respondent represents that the Board’s general practice, before passage of the 1976 Act, was to defer decision in order to have before it the parolee’s institutional record during his confinement on the subsequent offense. That record would obviously be highly relevant to the parole revocation decision. Annual reviews of the status of every parolee to whom it had not granted a dispositional interview were conducted under the former statute.
The 1976 Act and accompanying regulations, 28 CFR § 2.1 et seg. (1976), incorporate the former procedures with few modifications. Under current law, the Parole Commission reviews the parole violator warrant within 180 days of its issuance, 18 U. S. C. § 4214 (b)(1) (1976 ed.); the parolee, after notification of the impending review, is now entitled to assistance of appointed counsel, if requested, in preparing his written response. 18 U. S. C. § 4214 (a) (2) (B) (1976 ed.). The 1976 Act also abolishes the annual status review formerly required. Previously it was general practice to defer execution of the warrant to completion of the subsequent sentence. It is now firm Commission policy that unless “substantial mitigating circumstances” are shown, the parole violator term of a parolee convicted of crime is to run consecutively to the sentence imposed for the subsequent offense. 28 CFR § 2.47 (c) (1976).
Petitioner asserts protected liberty interests in both the length and conditions of his confinement. Those interests, he argues, are disregarded in several respects by issuance against him of an unexecuted parole violator warrant, which bars him from serving his 1962 rape conviction sentence concurrently with his 1971 homicide sentences, retards his parole eligibility on the later convictions, and adversely affects his prison classification status, He argues that lack of a prompt hearing risks the loss of evidence in mitigation which might induce the Board not to revoke his parole. Respondent’s position is that whatever process may eventually be due petitioner, the mere issuance of a parole violator warrant works no present deprivation of protected liberty sufficient to invoke due process protection.
(3)
In Morrissey, we held that the conditional freedom of a parolee generated by statute is a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which may not be terminated absent appropriate due process safeguards. The revocation hearing mandated by Morrissey is bottomed on the parallel interests of society and the parolee in establishing whether a parole violation has occurred and, if so, whether under all the circumstances the quality of that violation calls for parole revocation. The issue before us here, however, is not whether a Morrissey-type hearing will ever be constitutionally required in the present case, but whether a hearing must be held at the present time, before the parolee is taken into custody as a parole violator. We hold that there is no requirement for an immediate hearing.
Petitioner’s present confinement and consequent liberty loss derive not in any sense from the outstanding parole violator warrant, but from his two 1971 homicide convictions. Issuance of the warrant and notice of that fact to the institution of confinement did no more than express the Board’s intent to defer consideration of parole revocation to a later time. Though the gravity of petitioner’s subsequent crimes places him under a cloud, issuance of the warrant was not a determination that petitioner’s parole under his 1962 rape conviction will be revoked; the time at which the Commission must make that decision has not yet arrived. With only a prospect of future incarceration which is far from certain, we cannot say that the parole violator warrant has any present or inevitable effect upon the liberty interests which Morrissey sought to protect. Indeed, in holding that “[t]he revocation hearing must be tendered within a reasonable time after the parolee is taken into custody,” Morrissey, 408 U. S., at 488, we established execution of the warrant and custody under that warrant as the operative event triggering any loss of liberty attendant upon parole revocation. This is a functional designation, for the loss of liberty as a parole violator does not occur until the parolee is taken into custody under the warrant. Cf. 18 U. S. C. § 4206; 18 U. S. C. § 4213 (d) (1976 ed.).
The other injuries petitioner claims to suffer either do not involve a loss of protected liberty or have not occurred by reason of the warrant and detainer. His real complaint is that he desires to serve his sentence for the 1962 rape conviction concurrently with his sentences for two 1971 homicides. But, as we have noted, even after completion of the homicide sentences the Commission retains full discretion to dismiss the warrant or decide, after hearing, that petitioner’s parole need not be revoked. If revocation is chosen, the Commission has power to grant, retroactively, the equivalent of concurrent sentences and to provide for unconditional or conditional release upon completion of the subsequent sentence. See 18 U. S. C. §§ 4211, 4214 (d) (1976 ed.); 28 CFR §§ 2.21, 2.52 (c)(2) (1976). Thus, deferral of the revocation decision does not deprive petitioner of any such opportunity; nothing in the statute or regulations gives him any “right” to force the decision of the Commission at this time.
Petitioner also argues that issuance of a parole violator warrant, without more, diminishes his opportunity for parole on his intervening sentence. Assuming for the moment that granting of parole is a protected liberty interest which this warrant impinges, this argument fails to take into account that here the same Commission which will consider petitioner’s parole under his 1971 homicide convictions will decide whether to revoke parole granted under the 1962 conviction. The statutory hearing to which petitioner will be entitled upon his application for release on parole will give him the same full opportunity to persuade the Commission that he should be released from federal custody as would an immediate hearing on the parole violator warrant. Whether different issues would be presented by the prospect of adverse action by different and autonomous parole authorities, we need not consider.
Finally, there is a practical aspect to consider, for in cases such as this, in which the parolee admits' or has been convicted of an offense plainly constituting a parole violation, the only remaining inquiry is whether continued release is justified notwithstanding the violation. This is uniquely a “prediction as to the ability of the individual to live in society without committing antisocial acts.” Morrissey, supra, at 480. In making this prophecy, a parolee’s institutional record can be perhaps one of the most significant factors. Forcing decision immediately after imprisonment would not only deprive the parole authority of this vital information, but since the other most salient factor would be the parolee’s recent convictions, here a double homicide, a decision to revoke parole would often be foreordained. Given the predictive nature of the hearing, it is appropriate that such hearing be held at the time at which prediction is both most relevant and most accurate — at the expiration of the parolee’s intervening sentence.
Accordingly, and without regard to what process may be due petitioner before his parole may be finally revoked, we hold that he has been deprived of no constitutionally protected rights simply by issuance of a parole violator warrant. The Commission therefore has no constitutional duty to provide petitioner an adversary parole hearing until he is taken into custody as a parole violator by execution of the warrant.
Affirmed.
This constitutional issue has divided the Courts of Appeals. Three of the Circuits have concluded that a parolee convicted of crime committed while on parole is entitled to a due process hearing promptly upon issuance of the parole violator warrant and detainer. Jones v. Johnston, 175 U. S. App. D. C. 151, 534 F. 2d 353 (1976), cert. pending sub nom. Sigler v. Byrd, No. 76-355; United States ex rel. Hahn v. Revis, 520 F. 2d 632 (CA7 1975), mandate recalled, No. 74-1057 (Aug. 27,1975) ; Cleveland v. Ciccone, 517 F. 2d 1082 (CA8 1975). Other Circuits have held that no due process requirements attach at this time. Reese v. U. S. Bd. of Parole, 530 F. 2d 231 (CA9 1976), cert. pending sub nom. Reese v. U. S. Parole Comm’n, No. 75-6703; Gaddy v. Michael, 519 F. 2d 669 (CA4 1975), cert. pending, No. 75-5215; Orr v. Saxbe, No. 74-341 (MD Pa., Nov. 27, 1974), aff’d without opinion, 517 F. 2d 1399 (CA3 1975), cert. pending sub nom. Orr v. Levi, No. 75-5594; Colangelo v. U. S. Bd. of Parole, No. 74-251 (WD Ohio, Dec. 11, 1974), aff’d without opinion, 517 F. 2d 1404 (CA6 1975); Small v. Britton, 500 F. 2d 299 (CA10 1974); Cook v. U. S. Attorney General, 488 F. 2d 667 (CA5), cert. denied, 419 U. S. 846 (1974).
A detainer in this context is an internal administrative mechanism to assure that an inmate subject to an unexpired term of confinement will not be released from custody until the jurisdiction asserting a parole violation has had an opportunity to act — in this case by taking the inmate into custody or by making a parole revocation determination. When two autonomous jurisdictions are involved, as for example when a federal detainer is .placed against an inmate of a state institution, a detainer is a matter of comity.
Civ. Action No. 75-28-C3 (Kan., Jan. 29,1975).
The Commission’s newly promulgated rule, 28 CFR §2.57 (1976), validates any order of the Board entered prior to May 14, 1976 (the Act’s effective date).
Title 18 U. S. C. § 4205 provided:
“A warrant for the retaking of any United States prisoner who has violated his parole may be issued only by the Board of Parole or a member thereof and within the maximum term or terms for which he was sentenced. The unexpired term of imprisonment of any such prisoner shall begin to run from the date he is returned to the custody of the Attorney General under said warrant, and the time the prisoner was on parole shall not diminish the time he was sentenced to serve.”
Title 18 U. S. C. § 4207 provided:
“A prisoner retaken upon a warrant issued by the Board of Parole, shall be given an opportunity to appear before the Board, a member thereof, or an examiner designated by the Board.
“The Board may then, or at any time in its discretion, revoke the order of parole and terminate such parole or modify the terms and conditions thereof.
“If such order of parole shall be revoked and the parole so terminated, the said prisoner may be required to serve all or any part of the remainder of the term for which he was sentenced.”
“(a) In those instances where the prisoner is serving a new sentence in an institution, the warrant may be placed there as a detainer. Such prisoner shall be advised that he may communicate with the Board relative to disposition of the warrant, and may request that it be withdrawn or executed so his violator term will run concurrently with the new sentence. Should further information be deemed necessary, the Regional Director may designate a hearing examiner panel to conduct a dispositional interview at the institution where the prisoner is confined. At such dispositional interview the prisoner may be represented by counsel of his own choice and may call witnesses in his own behalf, provided he bears their expenses. He shall be given timely notice of the dispositional interview and its procedure.
“(b) Following the dispositional review the Regional Director may:
“(1) Let the detainer stand
“(2) Withdraw the detainer and close the case if the expiration date has passed;
“(3) Withdraw the detainer and reinstate to supervision; thus permitting the federal sentence time to run uninterruptedly from the time of his original release on parole or mandatory release.
“(4) Execute warrant, thus permitting the sentence to run from that point in time. If the warrant is executed, a previously conducted dispositional interview may be construed as a revocation hearing.
“(c) In all cases, including those where a dispositional interview is not conducted, the Board shall conduct annual reviews relative to the disposition of the warrant. These decisions will be made by the Regional Director. The Board shall request periodic reports from institution officials for its consideration.”
In the present case, where petitioner has already been convicted of and incarcerated on a subsequent offense, there is no need for the preliminary hearing which Morrissey requires upon arrest for a parole violation. This is so both because the subsequent conviction obviously gives the parole authority “probable cause or reasonable ground to believe that the . . . parolee has committed acts that would constitute a violation of parole conditions,” 408 U. S., at 485, and because issuance of the warrant does not immediately deprive the parolee of liberty. The 1976 Act calls for no preliminary hearing in such cases. 18 U. S. C. § 4214 (b) (1) (1976 ed.); see 28 CFR § 2.48 (f) (1976).
Congress has provided a statutory right to a parole revocation hearing along Morrissey lines even where the parolee "knowingly and intelligently admits violation” of the terms of his parole, or has been convicted of a crime committed while on parole and is therefore barred from relitigating facts constituting a parole violation. 18 U. S. C. §§ 4214 (c), (d) (1976 ed.); see Morrissey, supra, at 490. At the hearing the parolee may present evidence addressed to whether, given his admitted violation, circumstances exist justifying his continued release on parole. 28 CFR §2.50 (1976). Petitioner will be entitled to this statutory hearing within 90 days after execution of the warrant. 18 U. S. C. § 4214 (o) (1976 ed).
Petitioner further claims that evidence of mitigation may be lost if the revocation hearing is not held promptly, but he makes no claim that there is additional evidence in his case which may be vitiated by a delay. Had such claims been made, the Commission has the power, as did the Board before it, to conduct an immediate hearing at which petitioner can preserve his evidence. 18 U. S. C. § 4214 (b) (2) (1976 ed.); 28 CFR §2.47 (1976).
Petitioner also argues that the pending warrant and detainer adversely affect his prison classification and qualification for institutional programs. We have rejected the notion that every state action carrying adverse consequences for prison inmates automatically activates a due process right. In Meachum v. Fano, 427 U. S. 215 (1976), for example, no due process protections were required upon the discretionary transfer of state prisoners to a substantially less agreeable prison, even where that transfer visited a “grievous loss” upon the inmate. The same is true of prisoner classification and eligibility for rehabilitative programs in the federal system. Congress has given federal prison officials full discretion to control these conditions of confinement, 18 U. S. C. § 4081, and petitioner has no legitimate statutory or constitutional entitlement sufficient to invoke due process.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | D | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
JUSTICE THOMAS
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case requires us to clarify the relationship between the rights of employees under § 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA or Act), 49 Stat. 452, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 157, and the property rights of their employers.
I
This case stems from the efforts of Local 919 of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, AFL-CIO, to organize employees at a retail store in Newington, Connecticut, owned and operated by petitioner Lechmere, Inc. The store is located in the Lechmere Shopping Plaza, which occupies a roughly rectangular tract measuring approximately 880 feet from north to south and 740 feet from east to west. Lech-mere's store is situated at the Plaza's south end, with the main parking lot to its north. A strip of 13 smaller "satellite stores" not owned by Lechmere runs along the west side of the Plaza, facing the parking lot. To the Plaza's east (where the main entrance is located) runs the Berlin Turnpike, a four-lane divided highway. The parking 1st, however, does not abut the Turnpike; they are separated by a 46-foot-wide grassy strip, broken only by the Plaza's entrance. The parking lot is owned jointly by Lechmere ~nd the developer of the satellite stores. The grassy strip is public property (except for a 4-foot-wide band adjoining the parking lot, which belongs to Lechmere).
The union began its campaign to organize the store's 200 employees, none of whom was represented by a union, in June 1987. After a full-page advertisement in a local newspaper drew little response, nonemployee union organizers entered Lechmere's parking 1~t and began placing handbills on the windshields of cars parked in a corner of the lot used mostly by employees. Lechmere's manager immediately confronted the organizers, informed them that Lechmere prohibited solicitation or handbill distribution of any kind on its property, and asked them to leave. They did so, and Lechmere personnel removed the handbills. The union organizers renewed this handbilling effort in the parking lot on several subsequent occasions; each time they were asked to leave and the handbills were removed. The organizers then relocated to the public grassy strip, from where they attempted to pass out handbills to cars entering the lot during hours (before opening and after closing) when the drivers were assumed to be primarily store employees. For one month, the union organizers returned daily to the grassy strip to picket Lechmere; after that, they picketed intermittently for another six months. They also recorded the license plate numbers of cars parked in the employee parking area; with the cooperation of the Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles, they thus secured the names and addresses of some 41 nonsupervisory employees (roughly 20% of the store’s total). The union sent four mailings to these employees; it also made some attempts to contact them by phone or home visits. These mailings and visits resulted in one signed union authorization card.
Alleging that Lechmere had violated the NLRA by barring the nonemployee organizers from its property, the union filed an unfair labor practice charge with respondent National Labor Relations Board (Board). Applying the criteria set forth by the Board in Fairmont Hotel Co., 282 N. L. R. B. 139 (1986), an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled in the union’s favor. Lechmere, Inc., 295 N. L. R. B. 94 (1988). He recommended that Lechmere be ordered, among other things, to cease and desist from barring the union organizers from the parking lot and to post in conspicuous places in the store signs proclaiming in part:
“WE WILL NOT prohibit representatives of Local 919, United Food and Commercial Workers, AFL-CIO (‘the Union’) or any other labor organization, from distributing union literature to our employees in the parking lot adjacent to our store in Newington, Connecticut, nor will we attempt to cause them to be removed from our parking lot for attempting to do so.” Ibid.
The Board affirmed the ALJ’s judgment and adopted the recommended order, applying the analysis set forth in its opinion in Jean Country, 291 N. L. R. B. 11 (1988), which had by then replaced the short-lived Fairmont Hotel approach. 295 N. L. R. B. 92 (1989). A divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied Lech-mere’s petition for review and enforced the Board’s order. 914 F. 2d 313 (1990). This Court granted certiorari, 499 U. S. 918 (1991).
II
A
Section 7 of the NLRA provides in relevant part that “[ejmployees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations.” 29 U. S. C. § 157. Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, in turn, makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer “to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in [§7].” 29 U. S. C. § 158(a)(1). By its plain terms, thus, the NLRA confers rights only on employees, not on unions or their nonemployee organizers. In NLRB v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 351 U. S. 105 (1956), however, we recognized that insofar as the employees’ “right of self-organization depends in some measure on [their] ability... to learn the advantages of self-organization from others,” id., at 113, § 7 of the NLRA may, in certain limited circumstances, restrict an employer’s right to exclude nonemployee union organizers from his property. It is the nature of those circumstances that we explore today.
Babcock arose out of union attempts to organize employees at a factory located on an isolated 100-acre tract. The company had a policy against solicitation and distribution of literature on its property, which it enforced against all groups. About 40% of the company’s employees lived in a town of some 21,000 persons near the factory; the remainder were scattered over a 30-mile radius. Almost all employees drove to work in private cars and parked in a company lot that adjoined the fenced-in plant area. The parking lot could be reached only by a 100-yard-long driveway connecting it to a public highway. This driveway was mostly on company-owned land, except where it crossed a 31-foot-wide public right-of-way adjoining the highway. Union organizers attempted to distribute literature from this right-of-way. The union also secured the names and addresses of some 100 employees (20% of the total) and sent them three mailings. Still other employees were contacted by telephone or home visit.
The union successfully challenged the company’s refusal to allow nonemployee organizers onto its property before the Board. While acknowledging that there were alternative, nontrespassory means whereby the union could communicate with employees, the Board held that contact at the workplace was preferable. The Babcock & Wilcox Co., 109 N. L. R. B. 485, 493-494 (1954). “[T]he right to distribute is not absolute, but must be accommodated to the circumstances. Where it is impossible or unreasonably difficult for a union to distribute organizational literature to employees entirely off of the employer’s premises, distribution on a nonworking area, such as the parking lot and the walkways between the parking lot and the gate, may be warranted.” Id., at 493. Concluding that traffic on the highway made it unsafe for the union organizers to distribute leaflets from the right-of-way and that contacts through the mails, on the streets, at employees’ homes, and over the telephone would be ineffective, the Board ordered the company to allow the organizers to distribute literature on the company’s parking lot and exterior walkways. Id., at 486-487.
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit refused to enforce the Board’s order, NLRB v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 222 F. 2d 316 (1955), and this Court affirmed. While recognizing that “the Board has the responsibility of ‘applying the Act’s general prohibitory language in the light of the infinite combinations of events which might be charged as violative of its terms,’” 351 U. S., at 111-112 (quoting NLRB v. Stowe Spinning Co., 336 U. S. 226, 231 (1949)), we explained that the Board had erred by failing to make the critical distinction between the organizing activities of employees (to whom § 7 guarantees the right of self-organization) and nonemploy-ees (to whom §7 applies only derivatively). Thus, while “[n]o restriction may be placed on the employees’ right to discuss self-organization among themselves, unless the employer can demonstrate that a restriction is necessary to maintain production or discipline,” 351 U. S., at 113 (emphasis added) (citing Republic Aviation Corp. v. NLRB, 324 U. S. 793, 803 (1945)), “no such obligation is owed nonem-ployee organizers,” 351 U. S., at 113. As a rule, then, an employer cannot be compelled to allow distribution of union literature by nonemployee organizers on his property. As with many other rules, however, we recognized an exception. Where “the location of a plant and the living quarters of the employees place the employees beyond the reach of reasonable union efforts to communicate with them,” ibid., employers’ property rights may be “required to yield to the extent needed to permit communication of information on the right to organize,” id., at 112.
Although we have not had occasion to apply Babcock’s analysis in the ensuing decades, we have described it in cases arising in related contexts. Two such cases, Central Hardware Co. v. NLRB, 407 U. S. 539 (1972), and Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U. S. 507 (1976), involved activity by union supporters on employer-owned property. The principal issue in both cases was whether, based upon Food Employees v. Logan Valley Plaza, Inc., 391 U. S. 308 (1968), the First Amendment protected such activities. In both cases we rejected the First Amendment claims, and in Hudgens we made it clear that Logan Valley was overruled. Having decided the cases on constitutional grounds, we remanded them to the Board for consideration of the union supporters’ §7 claims under Babcock. In both cases, we quoted approvingly Babcock’s admonition that accommodation between employees’ § 7 rights and employers’ property rights “must be obtained with as little destruction of one as is consistent with the maintenance of the other,” 351 U. S., at 112. See Central Hardware, supra, at 544; Hudgens, supra, at 521, 522. There is no hint in Hudgens and Central Hardware, however, that our invocation of Babcock’s language of “accommodation” was intended to repudiate or modify Bab-cock’s holding that an employer need not accommodate non-employee organizers unless the employees are otherwise inaccessible. Indeed, in Central Hardware we expressly noted that nonemployee organizers cannot claim even a limited right of access to a nonconsenting employer’s property until “[a]fter the requisite need for access to the employer’s property has been shown.” 407 U. S., at 545.
If there was any question whether Central Hardware and Hudgens changed § 7 law, it should have been laid to rest by Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Carpenters, 436 U. S. 180 (1978). As in Central Hardware and Hudgens, the substantive § 7 issue in Sears was a subsidiary one; the case’s primary focus was on the circumstances under which the NLRA pre-empts state law. Among other things, we held in Sears that arguable § 7 claims do not pre-empt state trespass law, in large part because the trespasses of nonemployee union organizers are “far more likely to be unprotected than protected,” 436 U. S., at 205; permitting state courts to evaluate such claims, therefore, does not “create an unacceptable risk of interference with conduct which the Board, and a court reviewing the Board’s decision, would find protected,” ibid. This holding was based upon the following interpretation of Babcock:
“While Babcock indicates that an employer may not always bar nonemployee union organizers from his property, his right to do so remains the general rule. To gain access, the union has the burden of showing that no other reasonable means of communicating its organizational message to the employees exists or that the employer’s access rules discriminate against union solicitation. That the burden imposed on the union is a heavy one is evidenced by the fact that the balance struck by the Board and the courts under the Babcock accommodation principle has rarely been in favor of trespassory organizational activity.” 436 U. S., at 205 (emphasis added; footnotes omitted).
We further noted that, in practice, nonemployee organizational trespassing had generally been prohibited except where “unique obstacles” prevented nontrespassory methods of communication with the employees. Id., at 205-206, n. 41.
B
Jean Country, as noted above, represents the Board’s latest attempt to implement the rights guaranteed by §7. It sets forth a three-factor balancing test:
“[I]n all access cases our essential concern will be [1] the degree of impairment of the Section 7 right if access should be denied, as it balances against [2] the degree of impairment of the private property right if access should be granted. We view the consideration of [3] the availability of reasonably effective alternative means as especially significant in this balancing process.” 291 N. L. R. B., at 14.
The Board conceded that this analysis was unlikely to foster certainty and predictability in this corner of the law, but declared that “as with other legal questions involving multiple factors, the ‘nature of the problem, as revealed by unfolding variant situations, inevitably involves an evolutionary process for its rational response, not a quick, definitive formula as a comprehensive answer.’ ” Ibid, (quoting Electrical Workers v. NLRB, 366 U. S. 667, 674 (1961)).
Citing its role “as the agency with responsibility for implementing national labor policy,” the Board maintains in this case that Jean Country is a reasonable interpretation of the NLRA entitled to judicial deference. Brief for Respondent 18, and n. 8; Tr. of Oral Arg. 22. It is certainly true, and we have long recognized, that the Board has the “special function of applying the general provisions of the Act to the complexities of industrial life.” NLRB v. Erie Resistor Corp., 373 U. S. 221, 236 (1963); see also Phelps Dodge Corp. v. NLRB, 313 U. S. 177, 196-197 (1941). Like other administrative agencies, the NLRB is entitled to judicial deference when it interprets an ambiguous provision of a statute that it administers. See, e.g., NLRB v. Food & Commercial Workers, 484 U. S. 112, 123 (1987); cf. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 842-843 (1984).
Before we reach any issue of deference to the Board, however, we must first determine whether Jean Country — at least as applied to nonemployee organizational trespassing— is consistent with our past interpretation of § 7. “Once we have determined a statute’s clear meaning, we adhere to that determination under the doctrine of stare decisis, and we judge an agency’s later interpretation of the statute against our prior determination of the statute’s meaning.” Maislin Industries, U. S., Inc. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 497 U. S. 116, 131 (1990).
In Babcock, as explained above, we held that the Act drew a distinction “of substance,” 351 U. S., at 113, between the union activities of employees and nonemployees. In cases involving employee activities, we noted with approval, the Board “balanced the conflicting interests of employees to receive information on self-organization on the company’s property from fellow employees during nonworking time, with the employer’s right to control the use of his property.” Id., at 109-110. In cases involving nonemployee activities (like those at issue in Babcock itself), however, the Board was not permitted to engage in that same balancing (and we reversed the Board for having done so). By reversing the Board’s interpretation of the statute for failing to distinguish between the organizing activities of employees and nonemploy-ees, we were saying, in Chevron terms, that §7 speaks to the issue of nonemployee access to an employer’s property. Babcock’s teaching is straightforward: §7 simply does not protect nonemployee union organizers except in the rare case where “the inaccessibility of employees makes ineffective the reasonable attempts by nonemployees to communicate with them through the usual channels,” 351 U. S., at 112. Our reference to “reasonable” attempts was nothing more than a commonsense recognition that unions need not engage in extraordinary feats to communicate with inaccessible employees — not an endorsement of the view (which we expressly rejected) that the Act protects “reasonable” trespasses. Where reasonable alternative means of access exist, § 7’s guarantees do not authorize trespasses by nonemployee organizers, even (as we noted in Babcock, ibid.) “under . . . reasonable regulations” established by the Board.
Jean Country, which applies broadly to “all access cases,” 291 N. L. R. B., at 14, misapprehends this critical point. Its principal inspiration derives not from Babcock, but from the following sentence in Hudgens: “[T]he locus of th[e] accommodation [between §7 rights and private property rights] may fall at differing points along the spectrum depending on the nature and strength of the respective § 7 rights and private property rights asserted in any given context.” 424 U. S., at 522. From this sentence the Board concluded that it was appropriate to approach every case by balancing §7 rights against property rights, with alternative means of access thrown in as nothing more than an “especially significant” consideration. As explained above, however, Hud-gens did not purport to modify Babcock, much less to alter it fundamentally in the way Jean Country suggests. To say that our cases require accommodation between employees’ and employers’ rights is a true but incomplete statement, for the cases also go far in establishing the locus of that accommodation where nonemployee organizing is at issue. So long as nonemployee union organizers have reasonable access to employees outside an employer’s property, the requisite accommodation has taken place. It is only where such access is infeasible that it becomes necessary and proper to take the accommodation inquiry to a second level, balancing the employees’ and employers’ rights as described in the Hudgens dictum. See Sears, 436 U. S., at 205; Central Hardware, 407 U. S., at 545. At least as applied to nonem-ployees, Jean Country impermissibly conflates these two stages of the inquiry — thereby significantly eroding Bab-cock’s general rule that “an employer may validly post his property against nonemployee distribution of union literature,” 351 U. S., at 112. We reaffirm that general rule today, and reject the Board’s attempt to recast it as a multifactor balancing test.
c
The threshold inquiry in this case, then, is whether the facts here justify application of Babcock’s inaccessibility exception. The ALJ below observed that “the facts herein convince me that reasonable alternative means [of communicating with Lechmere’s employees] were available to the Union,” 295 N. L. R. B., at 99 (emphasis added). Reviewing the ALJ’s decision under Jean Country, however, the Board reached a different conclusion on this point, asserting that “there was no reasonable, effective alternative means available for the Union to communicate its message to [Lech-mere’s] employees.” Id., at 93.
We cannot accept the Board’s conclusion, because it “rest[s] on erroneous legal foundations,” Babcock, supra, at 112; see also NLRB v. Brown, 380 U. S. 278, 290-292 (1965). As we have explained, the exception to Babcock’s rule is a narrow one.' It does not apply wherever nontrespassory access to employees may be cumbersome or less-than-ideally effective, but only where “the location of a plant 'and the living quarters of the employees place the employees beyond the reach of reasonable union efforts to communicate with them,” 351 U. S., at 113 (emphasis added). Classic examples include logging camps, see NLRB v. Lake Superior Lumber Corp., 167 F. 2d 147 (CA6 1948); mining camps, see Alaska Barite Co., 197 N. L. R. B. 1023 (1972), enforced mem., 83 LRRM 2992 (CA9), cert. denied, 414 U. S. 1025 (1973); and mountain resort hotels, see NLRB v.S&H Grossinger’s Inc., 372 F. 2d 26 (CA2 1967). Babcock’s exception was crafted precisely to protect the § 7 rights of those employees who, by virtue of their employment, are isolated from the ordinary flow of information that characterizes our society. The union’s burden of establishing such isolation is, as we have explained, “a heavy one,” Sears, supra, at 205, and one not satisfied by mere conjecture or the expression of doubts concerning the effectiveness of nontrespassory means of communication.
The Board’s conclusion in this case that the union had no reasonable means short of trespass to make Lechmere’s employees aware of its organizational efforts is based on a misunderstanding of the limited scope of this exception. Because the employees do not reside on Lechmere’s property, they are presumptively not “beyond the reach,” Babcock, 351 U. S., at 113, of the union’s message. Although the employees live in a large metropolitan area (Greater Hartford), that fact does not in itself render them “inaccessible” in the sense contemplated by Babcock. See Monogram Models, Inc., 192 N. L. R. B. 705, 706 (1971). Their accessibility is suggested by the union’s success in contacting a substantial percentage of them directly, via mailings, phone calls, and home visits. Such direct contact, of course, is not a necessary element of “reasonably effective” communication; signs or advertising also may suffice. In this case, the union tried advertising in local newspapers; the Board said that this was not reasonably effective because it was expensive and might not reach the employees. 295 N. L. R. B., at 93. Whatever the merits of that conclusion, other alternative means of communication were readily available. Thus, signs (displayed, for example, from the public grassy strip adjoining Lechmere’s parking lot) would have informed the employees about the union’s organizational efforts. (Indeed, union organizers picketed the shopping center’s main entrance for months as employees came and went every day.) Access to employees, not success in winning them over,, is: the critical issue — although success, or lack thereof, may be relevant in determining whether reasonable access exists. Because the union in this case failed to establish the existence of any “unique obstacles,” Sears, 436 U. S., at 205-206, n. 41, that frustrated access to Lechmere’s employees, the Board erred in concluding that Lechmere committed an unfair labor practice by barring the nonemployee organizers from its property.
The judgment of the First Circuit is therefore reversed, and enforcement of the Board’s order is denied.
It is so ordered.
Lechmere had established this policy several years prior to the union’s organizing efforts. The store’s official policy statement provided, in relevant part:
“Non-associates [i. e., nonemployees] are prohibited from soliciting and distributing literature at all times anywhere on Company property, including parking lots. Non-associates have no right of access to the non-working areas and only to the public and selling areas of the store in connection with its public use.” Brief for Petitioner 7.
On each door to the store Lechmere had posted a 6- by 8-inch sign reading: “TO THE PUBLIC. No Soliciting, Canvassing, Distribution of Literature or Trespassing by Non-Employees in or on Premises.” App. 115— 116. Lechmere consistently enforced this policy inside the store as well as on the parking lot (against, among.Qthers, the Salvation Army and the Girl Scouts).
Under the (pre-Jean Country) Fairmont Hotel analysis applied by the ALJ, it was only where the employees’ § 7 rights and an employer’s property rights were deemed “relatively equal in strength,” Fairmont Hotel Co., 282 N. L. R. B. 139, 142 (1986), that the adequacy of nontrespassory means of communication became relevant. Because the ALJ found that the §7 rights involved here outweighed Lechmere’s property rights, he had no need to address the latter issue. He did so, he explained, only because of the possibility that his evaluation of the relative weights of the rights might not be upheld. 295 N. L. R. B. 94, 99 (1988).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | G | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Walter LaGrand and Karl LaGrand were each convicted of first-degree murder, attempted murder in the first degree, attempted armed robbery, and two counts of kidnaping. The Arizona Supreme Court gave a detailed account of the crime in Walter LaGrand’s appeal. See State v. LaGrand, 153 Ariz. 21, 23-24, 734 P. 2d 563, 565-566 (1987). Following a jury trial, both Karl LaGrand and Walter LaGrand were convicted on all charges and sentenced to death. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences. State v. LaGrand, 152 Ariz. 483, 733 P. 2d 1066 (1987) (Karl LaGrand); State v. LaGrand, supra (Walter LaGrand). Subsequently, we denied the LaGrands’ petitions for certiorari. See 484 U. S. 872 (1987).
The LaGrands then filed petitions corpus pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §2254. Until then, Walter LaGrand had been represented by Bruce Burke, a Tucson lawyer. Before appointing Burke as counsel in the habeas proceeding, however, the District Court required Burke to discuss all possible claims of ineffective assistance of counsel with Walter LaGrand and to file a status report with the court. See 133 F. 3d 1253, 1269 (CA9 1998). Walter La-Grand informed Burke that he did not desire a new attorney and requested that Burke continue to represent him. Ibid. Nevertheless, after Burke learned that Karl LaGrand was pursuing ineffective-assistanee-of-counsel claims, Burke moved to withdraw as counsel. The District Court denied this motion on the ground that ‘Walter LaGrand entered a waiver of any potential claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and Mr. Burke indicated to the Court that he believes no such grounds existed.” LaGrand v. Lewis, 883 F. Supp. 451, 456, n. 3 (1995). The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that “[w]hen Walter waived the offer of new counsel, he was waiving the benefits of new representation, among which would potentially have been the presentation of this sort of [ineffective-assistance claim].” 133 F. 3d, at 1269.
Among the claims a writ of habeas corpus was the claim that execution by lethal gas constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The District Court found the claim to be proeedurally defaulted because Walter LaGrand had failed to raise it either on direct appeal or in his petition for state postconviction relief, when the sole method of execution was by way of lethal gas. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit did not reach the issue of procedural default because it found the claim was not ripe until and unless LaGrand chose gas as his method of execution. Id., at 1264. The petition for writ of habeas corpus was denied. Id., at 1269.
In February 1999, Karl LaGrand filed a successive state petition for postconviction relief raising the claim that execution by lethal gas constituted cruel and unusual punishment. The trial court found the claim moot and precluded due to Karl LaGrand’s failure to raise the claim in prior state court proceedings, and the Arizona Supreme Court denied review. Karl LaGrand again raised the claim in a second federal habeas corpus petition. The District Court again found the claim proeedurally defaulted and concluded that Karl LaGrand had failed to establish cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice to excuse the default. The District Court denied that petition, but the Court of Appeals reversed.
The Ninth Circuit held that Karl LaGrand’s lethal gas claim was proeedurally barred but found cause and prejudice to excuse the default. The court concluded that Karl LaGrand’s failure to raise the lethal gas claim was excused because there was no legal or factual basis for the elaim when he pursued his direct appeal in state court. Prejudice was shown because he was now faced with execution by a method the Ninth Circuit had previously found to be unconstitutional.
The Ninth Circuit also addressed the State’s argument that Karl LaGrand’s choice of execution method constituted a waiver of his current claim. According to the Ninth Circuit, its precedent dictated that “Eighth Amendment protections may not be waived, at least in the area of capital punishment.” See LaGrand v. Stewart, 173 F. 3d 1144, 1148 (1999). As part of its ultimate order, the Court of Appeals stayed Karl LaGrand’s execution and enjoined Arizona “from executing Karl Hinze LaGrand, or anyone similarly situated, by means of lethal gas.” Id., at 1149. The State filed an application to vacate the stay, which we granted. Subsequent^/, Karl LaGrand’s lawyers moved to clarify our order to determine whether the Ninth Circuit’s injunction was still in place. We denied this motion. 525 U. S. 1174 (1999). At the last moment, Karl LaGrand requested the use of lethal injection, which the State allowed, and the validity of the Ninth Circuit’s injunction was not tested.
This case followed. Like Karl filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging lethal gas as a cruel and unusual form of execution. The District Court declined to follow the Ninth Circuit’s previous opinion in LaGrand v. Stewart, No. 99-99004 (Feb. 23, 1999), concluding that our lifting of the stay of execution necessarily vacated the merits of the Ninth Circuit’s decision. The District Court also denied a certificate of appealability, concluding that “the issue of procedural default of Petitioner’s lethal gas challenge is not debatable among jurists of reason.” Pet. for Cert. 5.
The Ninth Circuit panel granted a certificate of appealability and proceeded to the merits of the case. It concluded that our order lifting the stay of execution in LaGrand v. Stewart, No. 99-99004 (Feb. 23, 1999), did not pass upon the merits of the panel’s opinion and concluded that its reasoning remained sound. It then denied the stay of execution but restrained and enjoined the State of Arizona from executing Walter LaGrand by means of lethal gas.
The a application to lift the Court of Appeals’ injunction. We now grant the petition for certiorari, summarily reverse the judgment, and vacate the Court of Appeals’ injunctive order.
Walter LaGrand, by his actions, has waived his claim that execution by lethal gas is unconstitutional. At the time Walter LaGrand was sentenced to death, lethal gas was the only method of execution available in Arizona, but the State now provides inmates a choice of execution by lethal gas or lethal injection, see Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-704(B) (Supp. 1998) (creating a default rule of execution by lethal injection). Walter LaGrand was afforded this choice and decided to be executed by lethal gas. On March 1, 1999, Governor Hull of Arizona offered Walter LaGrand an opportunity to rescind this decision and select lethal injection as his method of execution. Walter LaGrand, again, insisted that he desired to be executed by lethal gas. By declaring his method of execution, picking lethal gas over the State’s default form of execution — lethal injection — Walter LaGrand has waived any objection he might have to it. See, e.g., Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, 464 (1938). To hold otherwise, and to hold that Eighth Amendment protections cannot be waived in the capital context, would create and apply a new procedural rule in violation of Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288 (1989).
b — ( ! — [
In addition, Walter LaGrand’s claims are procedurally defaulted, and he has failed to show cause to overcome this bar. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U. S. 722, 750 (1991). At the time of Walter LaGrand’s direct appeal, there was sufficient debate about the constitutionality of lethal gas executions* that Walter LaGrand cannot show cause for his failure to raise this claim. Arguments concerning the constitutionality of lethal gas have existed since its introduction as a method of execution in Nevada in 1921. See H. Bedau, The Death Penalty in America 16 (3d ed. 1982). In the period immediately prior to Walter LaGrand’s direct appeal, a number of States were reconsidering the use of execution by lethal gas, see Gray v. Lucas, 710 F. 2d 1048, 1059-1061 (CA5 1983) (discussing evidence presented by the defendant and changes in Nevada’s and North Carolina’s methods of execution), and two United States Supreme Court Justices had expressed their views that this method of execution was unconstitutional, see Gray v. Lucas, 463 U. S. 1237, 1240-1244 (1983) (Marshall, J., joined by Brennan, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari). In addition, lethal gas executions have been documented since 1937, when San Quentin introduced it as an execution method, and studies of the effect of execution by lethal gas date back to the 1950’s. See Bedau, supra, at 16.
III
Walter LaGrand’s alternative argument, that his ineffeetive-assistanee-of-counsel claim suffices as cause, also fails. Walter LaGrand specifically waived the claim that his trial counsel was ineffective, representing to the District Court prior to filing his first federal habeas petition that there was no basis for such claims. See LaGrand v. Lewis, 883 F. Supp., at 456, n. 3; 133 F. 3d, at 1269. In addition, the ineffective-assistance claim is, itself, procedurally defaulted. The Arizona court held that Walter LaGrand’s ineffective-assistance arguments were barred pursuant to a state procedural rule, see State v. LaGrand, No. CR-07426, Minute Entry (Pima County Super. Ct., Mar. 2, 1999), and Walter LaGrand has failed to demonstrate cause or prejudice for his failure to raise these claims on direct review.
Accordingly, the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed, and its injunctive order is vacated.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The questions presented here are whether the federal drug forfeiture statute authorizes a district court to enter a pretrial order freezing assets in a defendant’s possession, even where the defendant seeks to use those assets to pay an attorney; if so, we must decide whether such an order is permissible under the Constitution. We answer both of these questions in the affirmative.
I — I
In July 1987, an indictment was entered, alleging that respondent had directed a large-scale heroin distribution enterprise. The multicount indictment alleged violations of racketeering laws, creation of a continuing criminal enterprise (CCE), and tax and firearm offenses. The indictment also alleged that three specific assets — a home, an apartment, and $35,000 in cash — had been accumulated by respondent as a result of his narcotics trafficking. These assets, the indictment alleged, were subject to forfeiture under the Comprehensive Forfeiture Act of 1984 (CFA), 98 Stat. 2044, as amended, 21 U. S. C. § 853(a) (1982 ed., Supp. V), because they were “property constituting, or derived from . . . proceeds . . . obtained” from drug-law violations.
On the same day that the indictment was unsealed, the District Court granted the Government’s ex parte motion, pursuant to § 853(e)(1)(A), for a restraining order freezing the above-mentioned assets pending trial. Shortly thereafter, respondent moved to vacate this restraining order, to permit him to use the frozen assets to retain an attorney. Respondent’s motion further sought a declaration that if these assets were used to pay an attorney’s fees, §853(c)’s third-party transfers provision would not subsequently be used to reclaim such payments if respondent was convicted and his assets forfeited. Respondent raised various statutory challenges to the restraining order, and claimed that it interfered with his Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice. The District Court denied the motion to vacate.
On appeal, the Second Circuit concluded that respondent’s statutory and Sixth Amendment challenges were lacking, but remanded the case to the District Court for an adversarial hearing “at which the government ha[d] the burden to demonstrate the likelihood that the assets are forfeitable”; if the Government failed its burden at such a hearing, the Court of Appeals held, any fees paid to an attorney would be exempt from forfeiture irrespective of the final outcome at respondent’s trial. 836 F. 2d 74, 84 (1987). Pursuant to this mandate, on remand, the District Court held a 4-day hearing on whether continuing the restraining order was proper. At the end of the hearing, the District Court ruled that it would continue the restraining order because the Government had “overwhelmingly established a likelihood” that the property in question would be forfeited at the end of trial. App. to Pet. for Cert. 86a. Ultimately, respondent’s criminal case proceeded to trial, where he was represented by a Criminal Justice Act-appointed attorney.
In the meantime, the Second Circuit vacated its earlier opinion and heard respondent’s appeal en banc. The en banc court, by an 8-to-4 vote, ordered that the District Court’s restraining order be modified to permit the restrained assets to be used to pay attorney’s fees. 852 F. 2d 1400 (1988). The Court was sharply divided as to its rationale. Three of the judges found that the order violated the Sixth Amendment, while three others questioned it on statutory grounds; two judges found § 853 suspect under the Due Process Clause for its failure to include a statutory provision requiring the sort of hearing that the panel had ordered in the first place. The four dissenting judges would have upheld the restraining order.
We granted certiorari, 488 U. S. 941 (1988), because the Second Circuit’s decision created a conflict among the Courts of Appeals over the statutory and constitutional questions presented. We now reverse.
II
We first must address the question whether § 853 requires, upon conviction, forfeiture of assets that an accused intends to use to pay his attorneys.
A
“In determining the scope of a statute, we look first to its language.” United States v. Turkette, 452 U. S. 576, 580 (1981). In the case before us, the language of §853 is plain and unambiguous: all assets falling within its scope are to be forfeited upon conviction, with no exception existing for the assets used to pay attorney’s fees—or anything else, for that matter.
As observed above, § 853(a) provides that a person convicted of the offenses charged in respondent’s indictment “shall forfeit . . . any property” that was derived from the commission of these offenses. After setting out this rule, § 853(a) repeats later in its text that upon conviction a sentencing court “shall order” forfeiture of all property described in § 853(a). Congress could not have chosen stronger words to express its intent that forfeiture be mandatory in cases where the statute applied, or broader words to define the scope of what was to be forfeited. Likewise, the statute provides a broad definition of “property” when describing what types of assets are within the section’s scope: “real property . . . tangible and intangible personal property, including rights, privileges, interests, claims, and securities.” 21 U. S. C. § 853(b) (1982 ed., Supp. V). Nothing in this all-inclusive listing even hints at the idea that assets to be used to pay an attorney are not “property” within the statute’s meaning.
Nor are we alone in concluding that the statute is unambiguous in failing to exclude assets that could be used to pay an attorney from its definition of forfeitable property. This argument, advanced by respondent here, see Brief for Respondent 12-19, has been unanimously rejected by every Court of Appeals that has finally passed on it, as it was by the Second Circuit panel below, see 836 F. 2d, at 78-80; id., at 85-86 (Oakes, J., dissenting); even the judges who concurred on statutory grounds in the en banc decision did not accept this position, see 852 F. 2d, at 1405-1410 (Winter, J., concurring). We note also that the Brief for American Bar Association as Amicus Curiae 6 frankly admits that the statute “on [its] face, broadly cover[s] all property derived from alleged criminal activity and contain[s] no specific exemption for property used to pay bona fide attorneys’ fees.”
Respondent urges us, nonetheless, to interpret the statute to exclude such property for several reasons. Principally, respondent contends that we should create such an exemption because the statute does not expressly include property to be used for attorneys’ fees, and/or because Congress simply did not consider the prospect that forfeiture would reach assets that could be used to pay for an attorney. In support, respondent observes that the legislative history is “silent” on this question, and that the House and Senate debates fail to discuss this prospect. But this proves nothing: the legislative history and congressional debates are similarly silent on the use of forfeitable assets to pay stockbroker’s fees, laundry bills, or country club memberships; no one could credibly argue that, as a result, assets to be used for these purposes are similarly exempt from the statute’s definition of forfeit-able property. The fact that the forfeiture provision reaches assets that could be used to pay attorney’s fees, even though it contains no express provisions to this effect, “‘does not demonstrate ambiguity’” in the statute: ‘“It demonstrates breadth.’” Sedima, S. P. R. L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U. S. 479, 499 (1985) (quoting Haroco, Inc. v. American Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago, 747 F. 2d 384, 398 (CA7 1984)). The statutory provision at issue here is broad and unambiguous, and Congress’ failure to supplement § 853(a)’s comprehensive phrase — “any property” — with an exclamatory “and we even mean assets to be used to pay an attorney” does not lessen the force of the statute’s plain language.
We also find unavailing respondent’s reliance on the comments of several legislators — made following enactment — to the effect that Congress did not anticipate the use of the forfeiture law to seize assets that would be used to pay attorneys. See Brief for Respondent 15-16, and n. 9 (citing comments of Sen. Leahy and Reps. Hughes and Shaw). As we have noted before, such postenactment views “form a hazardous basis for inferring the intent” behind a statute, United States v. Price, 361 U. S. 304, 313 (1960); instead, Congress’ intent is “best determined by [looking to] the statutory language that it chooses,” Sedima, S. P. R. L., swpra, at 495, n. 13. Moreover, we observe that these comments are further subject to question because Congress has refused to act on repeated suggestions by the defense bar for the sort of exemption respondent urges here, even though it has amended § 853 in other respects since these entreaties were first heard. See Pub. L. 99-570, §§ 1153(b), 1864, 100 Stat. 3207-13, 3207-54.
In addition, we observe that in the very same law by which Congress adopted the CFA — Pub. L. 98-473, 98 Stat. 1837-Congress also adopted a provision for the special forfeiture of collateral profits (e. g., profits from books, movies, etc.) that a convicted defendant derives from his crimes. See Victims of Crime Act of 1984, 98 Stat. 2175-2176 (now codified at 18 U. S. C. §§3681-3682 (1982 ed., Supp. V)). That forfeiture provision expressly exempts “pay[ments] for legal representation of the defendant in matters arising from the offense for which such defendant has been convicted, but no more than 20 percent of the total [forfeited collateral profits] may be so used.” §3681(c)(l)(B)(ii). Thus, Congress adopted express ly — in a statute enacted simidtaneously with the one under review in this case — the precise exemption from forfeiture which respondent asks us to imply into §853. The express exemption from forfeiture of assets that could be used to pay attorney’s fees in Chapter XIV of Pub. L. 98-473 indicates to us that Congress understood what it was doing in omitting such an exemption from Chapter III of that enactment.
Finally, respondent urges us, see Brief for Respondent 20-29, to invoke a variety of general canons of statutory construction, as well as several prudential doctrines of this Court, to create the statutory exemption he advances; among these doctrines is our admonition that courts should construe statutes to avoid decision as to their constitutionality. See, e. g., Edward, J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Building & Constr. Trades Council, 485 U. S. 568, 575 (1988); NLRB. v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 440 U. S. 490, 500 (1979). We respect these canons, and they are quite often useful in close cases, or when statutory language is ambiguous. But we have observed before that such “interpretative canon[s are] not a license for the judiciary to rewrite language enacted by the legislature.” United States v. Albertini, 472 U. S. 675, 680 (1985). Here, the language is clear and the statute comprehensive: §853 does not exempt assets to be used for attorney’s fees from its forfeiture provisions.
In sum, whatever force there might be to respondent’s claim for an exemption from forfeiture under § 853(a) of assets necessary to pay attorney’s fees — based on his theories about the statute’s purpose, or the implications of interpretative canons, or the understandings of individual Members of Congress about the statute’s scope — “[t]he short answer is that Congress did not write the statute that way.” United States v. Naftalin, 441 U. S. 768, 773 (1979).
B
Although § 853(a) recognizes no general exception for assets used to pay an attorney, we are urged that the provision in § 853(e)(1)(A) for pretrial restraining orders on assets in a defendant’s possession should be interpreted to include such an exemption. It was on this ground that Judge Winter concurred below. 852 F. 2d, at 1405-1411.
The restraining order subsection provides that, on the Government’s application, a district court “may enter a restraining order or injunction ... or take any other action to preserve the availability of property ... for forfeiture under this section.” 21 U. S. C. §853(e)(1) (1982 ed., Supp. V). Judge Winter read the permissive quality of the subsection (i. e., “may enter”) to authorize a district court to employ “traditional principles of equity” before restraining a defendant’s use of forfeitable assets; a balancing of hardships, he concluded, generally weighed against restraining a defendant’s use of forfeitable assets to pay for an attorney. 852 F. 2d, at 1406. Judge Winter further concluded that assets not subjected to pretrial restraint under § 853(e), if used to pay an attorney, may not be subsequently seized for forfeiture to the Government, notwithstanding the authorization found in § 853(c) for recoupment of forfeitable assets transferred to third parties.
This reading seriously misapprehends the nature of the provisions in question. As we have said, § 853(a) is categorical: it contains no reference at all to § 853(e) or § 853(c), let alone any reference indicating that its reach is limited by those sections. Perhaps some limit could be implied if these provisions were necessarily inconsistent with § 853(a). But that is not the case. Under § 853(e)(1), the trial court “may” enter a restraining order if the United States requests it, but not otherwise, and it is not required to enter such an order if a bond or some other means to “preserve the availability of property described in subsection (a) of this section for forfeiture” is employed. Thus, § 853(e)(1)(A) is plainly aimed at implementing the commands of § 853(a) and cannot sensibly be construed to give the district court discretion to permit the dissipation of the very property that § 853(a) requires be forfeited upon conviction.
We note that the “equitable discretion” that is given to the judge under § 853(e)(1)(A) turns out to be no discretion at all as far as the issue before us here is concerned: Judge Winter concludes that assets necessary to pay attorney’s fees must be excluded from any restraining order. See 852 F. 2d, at 1407-1409. For that purpose, the word “may” becomes “may not.” The discretion found in §853(e) becomes a command to use that subsection (and § 853(c)) to frustrate the attainment of §853(a)’s ends. This construction is improvident. Whatever discretion Congress gave the district courts in §§ 853(e) and 853(c), that discretion must be cabined by the purposes for which Congress created it: “to preserve the availability of property ... for forfeiture.” We cannot believe that Congress intended to permit the effectiveness of the powerful “relation-back” provision of § 853(c), and the comprehensive “any property . . . any proceeds” language of § 853(a), to be nullified by any other construction of the statute.
This result may seem harsh, but we have little doubt that it is the one that the statute mandátes. Section 853(c) states that “[a]ll right, title, and interest in [forfeitable] property . . . vests in the United States upon the commission of the act giving rise to forfeiture.” Permitting a defendant to use assets for his private purposes that, under this provision, will become the property of the United States if a conviction occurs cannot be sanctioned. Moreover, this view is supported by the relevant legislative history, which states that “[t]he sole purpose of [§ 853’s] restraining order provision ... is to preserve the status quo, i. e., to assure the availability of the property pending disposition of the criminal case.” S. Rep. No. 98-225, p. 204 (1983). If, instead, the statutory interpretation adopted by Judge Winter’s concurrence were applied, this purpose would not be achieved.
We conclude that there is no exemption from § 853’s forfeiture or pretrial restraining order provisions for assets which a defendant wishes to use to retain an attorney. In enacting §853, Congress decided to give force to the old adage that “crime does not pay.” We find no evidence that Congress intended to modify that nostrum to read, “crime does not pay, except for attorney’s fees.” If, as respondent and supporting amici so vigorously assert, we are mistaken as to Congress’ intent, that body can amend this statute to otherwise provide. But the statute, as presently written, cannot be read any other way.
Ill
Having concluded that the statute authorized the restraining order entered by the District Court, we reach the question whether the order violated respondent’s right to counsel of choice as protected by the Sixth Amendment or the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
A
Respondent’s most sweeping constitutional claims are that, as a general matter, operation of the forfeiture statute interferes with a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice, and the guarantee afforded by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause of a “balance of forces” between the accused and the Government. In this regard, respondent contends, the mere prospect of post-trial forfeiture is enough to deter a defendant’s counsel of choice from representing him.
In another decision we announce today, Caplin & Drys-dale, Chartered v. United States, post, p. 617, we hold that neither the Fifth nor the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution requires Congress to permit a defendant to use assets adjudged to be forfeitable to pay that defendant’s legal fees. We rely on our conclusion in that case to dispose of the similar constitutional claims raised by respondent here.
B
In addition to the constitutional issues raised in Caplin & Drysdale, respondent contends that freezing the assets in question before he is convicted — and before they are finally adjudged to be forfeitable — raises distinct constitutional concerns. We conclude, however, that assets in a defendant’s possession may be restrained in the way they were here based on a finding of probable cause to believe that the assets are forfeitable.
We have previously permitted the Government to seize property based on a finding of probable cause to believe that the property will ultimately be proved forfeitable. See, e. g., United States v. $8,850, 461 U. S. 555 (1983); Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U. S. 663 (1974). Here, where respondent was not ousted from his property, but merely restrained from disposing of it, the governmental intrusion was even less severe than those permitted by our prior decisions.
Indeed, it would be odd to conclude that the Government may not restrain property, such as the home and apartment in respondent’s possession, based on a finding of probable cause, when we have held that (under appropriate circumstances), the Government may restrain persons where there is a finding of probable cause to believe that the accused has committed a serious offense. See United States v. Salerno, 481 U. S. 739 (1987). Given the gravity of the offenses charged in the indictment, respondent himself could have been subjected to pretrial restraint if deemed necessary to “reasonably assure [his] appearance [at trial] and the safety of. . . the community,” 18 U. S. C. § 3142(e) (1982 ed., Supp. V); we find no constitutional infirmity in § 853(e)’s authorization of a similar restraint on respondent’s property to protect its “appearance” at trial and protect the community’s interest in full recovery of any ill-gotten gains.
Respondent contends that both the nature of the Government’s property right in forfeitable assets, and the nature of the use to which he would have put these assets (i. e., retaining an attorney), require some departure from our established rule of permitting pretrial restraint of assets based on probable cause. We disagree. In Caplin & Drysdale, we conclude that a weighing of these very interests suggests that the Government may — without offending the Fifth or Sixth Amendment — obtain forfeiture of property that a defendant might have wished to use to pay his attorney. Post, p. 617. Given this holding, we find that a pretrial restraining order does not “arbitrarily” interfere with a defendant’s “fair opportunity” to retain counsel. Cf. Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45, 69, 53 (1932). Put another way: if the Government may, post-trial, forbid the use of forfeited assets to pay an attorney, then surely no constitutional violation occurs when, after probable cause is adequately established, the Government obtains an order barring a defendant from frustrating that end by dissipating his assets prior to trial.
IV
For the reasons given above, the judgment of the Second Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The CFA added or amended forfeiture provisions for two classes of violations under federal law, racketeering offenses and CCE offenses, see 98 Stat. 2040-2053, as amended. The CCE forfeiture statute at issue here, now provides:
Ҥ 853. Criminal forfeitures
“(a) Property subject to criminal forfeiture
“Any person convicted of a violation of this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter punishable by imprisonment for more than one year shall forfeit to the United States, irrespective of any provision of State law—
“(1) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of such violation;
“(2) any of the person’s property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, such violation; and
“(3) in the case of a person convicted of engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of section 848 of this title, the person shall forfeit, in addition to any property described in paragraph (1) or (2), any of his interest in, claims against, and property or contractual rights affording a source of control over, the continuing criminal enterprise.
“The court, in imposing sentence on such person, shall order, in addition to any other sentence imposed pursuant to this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter, that the person forfeit to the United States all property described in this subsection. In lieu of a fine otherwise authorized by this part, a defendant who derives profits or other proceeds from an offense may be fined not more than twice the gross profits or other proceeds.”
This statutory provision, the principal focus of this petition, says that:
“Upon application of the United States, the court may enter a restraining order or injunction ... or take any other action to preserve the availability of property described in subsection (a) of [§ 853] for forfeiture under this section—
“(A) upon the filing of an indictment or information charging a violation ... for which criminal forfeiture may be ordered under [§ 853] and alleging that the property with respect to which the order is sought would, in the event of conviction, be subject to forfeiture under this section.”
Section 853(c), the third-party transfer provision, states that:
“All right, title, and interest in property described in [§ 853] vests in the United States upon the commission of the act giving rise to forfeiture under this section. Any such property that is subsequently transferred to a person other than the defendant may be the subject of a special verdict of forfeiture and thereafter shall be ordered forfeited to the United States, unless the transferee [establishes his entitlement to such property pursuant to § 853(n)].”
As noted in the quotation of § 853(c), a person making a claim for forfeited assets must file a petition with the court pursuant to § 853(n)(6):
“If, after [a] hearing [on the petition], the court determines that the petitioner has established . . . that—
“(A) the petitioner has a legal right, title, or interest in the property . . . [that predates] commission of the acts which gave rise to the forfeiture of the property under [§ 853]; or
“(B) the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser for value of the . . . property and was at the time of purchase reasonably without cause to believe that the property was subject to forfeiture under this section;
“the court shall amend the order of forfeiture in accordance with its determination.”
An attorney seeking a payment of fees from forfeited assets under §853(n)(6) would presumably rest his petition on subsection (B) quoted above, though (for reasons we explain in Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, post, at 632, n. 10) it is highly doubtful that one who defends a client in a criminal ease that results in forfeiture could prove that he was “without cause to believe that the property was subject to forfeiture.” Cf. 852 F. 2d, 1400, 1410 (CA2 1988) (Winter, J., concurring).
See, e. g., United States v. Moya-Gomez, 860 F. 2d 706 (CA7 1988); United States v. Nichols, 841 F. 2d 1485 (CA10 1988); United States v. Jones, 837 F. 2d 1332 (CA5), rehearing granted, 844 F. 2d 215 (1988); In re Forfeiture Hearing as to Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered, 837 F. 2d 637 (CA4 1988) (en banc), aff’d sub nom. Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, post, p. 617.
At the end of the trial, respondent was convicted of the charges against him, and the jury returned a special verdict finding the assets in question to be forfeitable beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the District Court entered a judgment of conviction and declared the assets forfeited.
We do not believe that these subsequent proceedings render the dispute over the pretrial restraining order moot. The restraining order remains in effect pending the appeal of respondent’s conviction, see App. to Pet. for Cert. 77a-78a, which has not yet been decided. Consequently, the dispute before us concerning the District Court’s order remains a live one.
Respondent’s trial had commenced on February 16, 1988, after the Court of Appeals had agreed to hear the case en banc, but before it rendered its ruling. Consequently, respondent’s assets remained frozen, and respondent was defended by appointed counsel.
In the midst of respondent’s trial — on July 1, 1988 — the en banc Court of Appeals rendered its decision for respondent. At a hearing held four days later, the District Court offered to permit respondent to use the frozen assets to hire private counsel. Respondent rejected this offer, coming as summations were about to get underway at the end of a 4A-month trial, and instead continued with his appointed attorney. Three weeks later, on July 25, 1988, the jury returned a guilty verdict.
See United States v. Bissell, 866 F. 2d 1343, 1348-1350 (CA11 1989); United States v. Moya-Gomez, supra, at 722-723; United States v. Nichols, 841 F. 2d, at 1491-1496; id., at 1509 (Logan, J., dissenting); In re Forfeiture Hearing as to Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered, 837 F. 2d, at 641-642 (en banc); id., at 651 (Phillips, J., dissenting). Only one Court of Appeals — the Fifth Circuit — has issued any decisions providing support for this reading of the statute, see, e. g., United States v. Jones, supra, but this ruling is currently being reconsidered en banc, 844 F. 2d 215 (1988).
Respondent is correct that, by and large, the relevant House and Senate Reports make no mention of the attorney’s fees question. However, in discussing the background motivating the adoption of the CFA, the House Judiciary Committee discussed the failure of previous, more lax forfeiture statutes:
“One highly publicized ease ... is illustrative of the problem. That case was United States v. Meinster .... In this prosecution ... a Florida based criminal organization had . . . grossed about $300 million over a 16-month period. The Federal Government completed a successful prosecution in which the three primary defendants were convicted and this major drug operation was aborted. However, forfeiture was attempted on only two [residences] worth $750,000 ....
“Of the $750,000 for the residences, $175,000 was returned to the wife of one of the defendants, and $559,000 was used to pay the defendant’s attorneys. . . .
“The Government wound up with $16,000. . . .
“It is against this background that present Federal forfeiture procedures are tested and found wanting.” H. R. Rep. No. 98-845, pt. 1, p. 3 (1984) (emphasis added).
This passage suggests, at the very least, congressional frustration with the diversion of large amounts of forfeitable assets to pay attorney’s fees. It certainly does not suggest an intent on Congress’ part to exempt from forfeiture such fees.
Respondent claims support from only one piece of preenactment legislative history: a footnote in the same House Report quoted above, which discussed the newly proposed provision for pretrial restraint on forfeitable assets. The footnote stated that:
“Nothing in this section is intended to interfere with a person’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The Committee, therefore, does not resolve the conflict in District Court opinions on the use of restraining orders that impinge on a person’s right to retain counsel in a criminal case.” Id., at 19, n. 1.
Respondent argues that the Committee’s disclaimer of any interest in resolving the conflict among the District Courts indicates the Committee’s understanding that the statute would not be employed to freeze assets that might be used to pay legitimate attorney’s fees. See Brief for Respondent 14, and n. 8.
This ambiguous passage however, can be read for the opposite proposition as well, as the Report expressly refrained from disapproving of eases where pretrial restraining orders similar to the one issued here were imposed. See H. R. Rep. No. 98-845, supra, at 19, n. 1 (citing United States v. Bello, 470 F. Supp. 723, 724-725 (SD Cal. 1979)). Moreover, the Committee’s statement that the statute should not be applied in a manner contrary to the Sixth Amendment appears to be nothing more than an exhortation for the courts to tread carefully in this delicate area.
See, e. g., Attorneys’ Fees Forfeiture: Hearing before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 99th Cong., 2d Sess., 148-213 (1986); Forfeiture Issues: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Crime of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 99th Cong., 1st Sess., 187-242 (1985).
We do not consider today, however, whether the Due Process Clause requires a hearing before a pretrial restraining order can be imposed. As noted above, in its initial consideration of this case, a panel of the Second Circuit ordered that such a hearing be held before permitting the entry of a restraining order; on remand, the District Court held an extensive, 4-day hearing on the question of probable cause.
Though the United States petitioned for review of the Second Circuit’s holding that such a hearing was required, see Pet. for Cert. I, given that the Government prevailed in the District Court notwithstanding the hearing, it would be pointless for us now to consider whether a hearing was required by the Due Process Clause. Furthermore, because the Court of Appeals, in its en banc decision, did not address the procedural due process issue, we also do not inquire whether the hearing — if a hearing was required at all — was an adequate one.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These civil suits were filed by the United States under § 7 of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 731, as amended, 64 Stat. 1125, 15 U. S. C. § 18, to prevent two bank mergers — one in Texas between the First City National Bank of Houston and the Southern National Bank of Houston, and one in Pennsylvania between the Provident National Bank and the Central Penn National Bank, both in Philadelphia.
The Comptroller of the Currency approved the mergers under the Bank Merger Act of 1966, 80 Stat. 7,12 U. S. C. § 1828 (e) (1964 ed., Supp. II). The United States thereupon brought these suits in the respective District Courts and the Comptroller intervened in them. The District Courts dismissed the complaints. No. 914 (unreported) ; No. 972, 262 F. Supp. 397. The United States appealed, 32 Stat. 823, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 29, and we noted probable jurisdiction, 385 U. S. 1023, 1024.
I. ■
It is suggested that the complaints are defective in that they fail to state that the actions are brought under the Bank Merger Act of 1966, do not even mention the Act, and that, therefore, these cases should be remanded to allow the Government to amend the complaints.
The Bank Merger Act of 1966 provides that “[a]ny action brought under the antitrust laws” shall be brought within a specified time (12 U. S. C. § 1828 (c)(7)(A)); it also specifies the standards to be applied by a court in a judicial proceeding challenging a bank merger “on the ground that the merger . . . constituted a violation of any antitrust laws other than section 2 of [the Sherman Act]” (12 U. S. C. § 1828 (c)(7)(B)); and it provides immunity from such an attack if those standards are met. Section 1828 (c)(8) provides that, “[f]or the purposes of [§ 1828 (c) ], the term ‘antitrust laws’ means . . . [the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act], and any other Acts in pari materia.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, an action challenging a bank merger on the ground of its anticompeti-tive effects is brought under the antitrust laws. Once an action - is brought under the antitrust laws, the Bank Merger Act provides a new defense or justification to the merger’s proponents — “that the anticompetitive effects of the proposed transaction are clearly outweighed in the public interest by the probable effect of the transaction in meeting the convenience and needs of the community to be served.” 12 U. S. C. § 1828 (c)(5)(B). There is no indication that an action challenging a merger on the ground of its anticompetitive effects is bottomed on the Bank Merger. Act rather than on the antitrust, laws. What is apparent is that Congress intended that a defense or justification be available once it had been determined that a transaction would have anticompetitive effects, as judged by the standards normally applied in antitrust actions. Thus, the Government’s failure to base the actions on the Bank Merger Act of 1966 does not constitute a defect in its pleadings. Nor is the Government’s failure to mention the Bank Merger Act fatal, for, as we shall see, the offsetting community “convenience and needs,” as, specified in 12 U. S. C. § 1828 (c)(5)(B), must be pleaded and proved by the defenders of the merger.
. - n.
An application for approval of- the Texas merger was made to the Comptroller of the Currency pursuant to 12 U. S. C. § 1828 (c)(5)(B), which provides that he shall not approve the merger “whose effect in any section of*the country may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly, or which in any other manner would be-in restraint of trade, unless [he] finds that the - anticompetitive effects of the proposed transaction are clearly outweighed in the public interest by the probable effect of the transaction in meeting the convenience and needs of the community to be served.” Requests were made of the Attorney General and the Federal Reserve Board pursuant to 12 U. S. C. § 1828 (c) (4) for their views- and both submitted reports to the Comptroller that the merger would have serious anticompetitive effects. The Comptroller nonetheless approved it.
The same procedure was followed in the Pennsylvania case, and the Attorney General and Federal Reserve, submitted adverse reports. Nonetheless the Comptroller approved this merger also. And, as we have said, these civil suits were instituted to enjoin the mergers under § 7 of the Clayton Act.
Section 7 of the Clayton^ Act condemns mergers where “the effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition.” The Bank Merger Act of 1966 did not change that standard or the machinery for obtaining the prior approval of the Comptroller and a preliminary expression of views by the Attorney General and the Federal Reserve, but it added an additional standard for the Comptroller. Section 1828 (c)(5)(B) says, as already noted, that no merger shall be approved where the effect “may be substantially to lessen competition” unless the responsible agency, in this case the Comptroller, “finds that the anti-competitive effects of the proposed transaction are clearly outweighed in the public interest by the probable effect of the transaction in meeting the convenience and needs of the community to be served.” And that subsection goes on to say: “In every case, the responsible agency shall take into consideration the financial and managerial resources and future prospects of the existing and proposed institutions, and the convenience and needs of the community! to be served.”
Section 1828 (c) (7) (B) provides that in a judicial proceeding attacking a merger on the ground that it violates the antitrust laws “the standards applied by the court shall be identical with” those the banking agencies must apply. Arid 12 U. S. C. § 1828 (c)(7)(A) states that “In any such action, the court shall review de novo the issues presented.” (Emphasis added.)
Section 1828 (c)(7)(A) also provides that the commencement of an antitrust action in the courts “shall stay the effectiveness of the agency’s approval unless the court shall otherwise specifically order.”
It is around these new provisions of the 1966 Aet and their interplay with §.7 of the Clayton Act that the present controversy turns.
First is the question whether the burden of proof is on the defendant banks to establish that an anticom-petitive merger is within the exception of 12 U, 8. C. § 1828 (c) (5) (B) or whether it is on the Government. We think it plain that the banks carry , the burden.' That is the general rule where one claims the benefits of an exception to the prohibition of a statute, Federal Trade Commission v. Morton Salt Co., 334 U. S. 37, 44-45. The House Report (No. 1221, 89th Cong., 2d Sess.) makes clear that antitrust standards were the norm and anticompetitive bank mergers, the exception: “. . . the bill acknowledges that the general principle of the antitrust- laws — that substantially anticompetitive mergers are prohibited — applies to banks, but permits an exception in cases where it is clearly shown that a given merger is so beneficial to the convenience and needs of the community to be served . . . that it would be in the public interest to permit it ” (Emphasis added.) Id., at 3-4.
The sponsor of the bill that was finally enacted, Congressman Patman, flatly stated: “It should be clearly noted that the burden of establishing such 'convenience and needs' is on the banks seeking to merge; and when we say clearly outweighed we mean outweighed' by the preponderance of the evidence.” 112 Cong. Rec.' 2333-2334 (Feb. 8, 1966).
We therefore disagree with the views ■ of the lower courts to the contrary. *
This problem is, of course, subtly merged with the question whether judicial review of the Comptroller’s decision is in the category of other administrative rulings which are sustained unless a court is persuaded that the agency’s action is clearly unsupported or not supported by substantial evidence.
The 1966 Act was the product of powerful contending forces, each of which in the aftermath claimed more of a victory than it deserved, leaving the controversy that finally abated in Congress to be finally resolved in the courts. So far as review of administrative agency action is concerned, we have only this to say. Prior to the 1966 Act administrative approval of bank mergers was necessary. Yet in an antitrust action later brought to enjoin them we never stopped to consider what weight, if any, the agency’s determination should have in the antitrust case. See United States v. Philadelphia National Bank, 374 U. S. 321; United States v. First Nat. Bank, 376 U. S. 665. Traditionally in antitrust actions involving regulated industries, the courts have never given presumptive weight to a prior agency decision, for the simple reason that Congress put such suits on a different axis than was familiar in administrative procedure. United States v. Radio Corporation of America, 358 U. S. 334; United States v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., 376 U. S. 651; United States v. Philadelphia National Bank, supra; United States v. First Nat. Bank, supra. We have found no indication that Congress designed judicial review differently under the 1966 Act than had earlier obtained.
In fact, as already noted, “the standards applied by the court shall be identical with those that the banking agencies are directed to apply.” 12 U. S. C. § 1828 (c) (7)(B). This language does not express the conventional standard, i. e., whether the agency’s action is supported by substantial evidence. In the latter instance it is the agency’s function to determine whether the law has been violated, while it is the court’s function to ascertain whether, absent error in statutory construction, the agency’s action has substantial support in the evidence.
There is no indication that Congress took that course here. Indeed the 1966 Act provides that the court in an antitrust action “shall review de novo the issues presented.” (Emphasis added.) 12 U. S. C. § Í828 (c)(7)(A). It is argued that the use of the word “review” rather than “trial” indicates a more limited scope to judicial action. The words “review” and “trial” might conceivably be used interchangeably. The critical words seem to us to be “de novo” and “issues presented.” They mean to us that the court should make an independent determination of the issues. Congressman Patman, the Chairman of the House Committee that drafted the Act, in speaking of this de novo review, said that the court would “completely and On its own make a determination as to whether the challenged bank merger should .be approved under the standard set forth in paragraph 5 (B) of the bill.” He added that the “court is not to give any special weight to the determination of the bank supervisory agency on this, issue.” 112 Cong.' Rec. 2335 (Feb. 8, 1966). Indeed the momentum of judicial precedents is in .that direction. For immunity from antitrust laws “is not lightly implied.” California v. Federal Power Commission, 369 U. S. 482, 485. And .the grant of administrative power to give immunity unless the agency's decision is arbitrary; 'capricious, or unsupported by substantial evidence, would be a long step in that direction. • Moreover, the Comptrollér’s action is informal, no hearings in the customary sense having been held prior to the 1966 Act (United States v. Philadelphia National Bank, supra, at 351) and none being required by Congress in the 1966 Act. We would therefore have to assume that Congress made a revolutionary innovation by making administrative action well nigh conclusive, even though no hearing had been held and no record in the customary sense created.
The courts may find the Comptroller’s reasons persuasive or well nigh conclusive. But it is the court’s judgment, not the Comptroller’s, that finally determines whether the merger is legal. That was the practice prior to the 1966 Act; and we cannot find a purpose on the part of Congress to change the rule. This conclusion does not raise serious constitutional questions by making the courts perform non judicial tasks. The “rule of reason,” long prevalent in the antitrust field (see, e. g., Chicago Board of Trade v. United States, 246 U. S. 231), has been administered by the courts. A determination of tiie effect on competition within the meaning of § 7 of the Clayton Act is a familiar judicial task. The area of “the convenience and needs of the community to be served,” now in focus as part of the defense under the 1966 Act, is related, though perhaps remotely, to the failing-company, doctrine, long known to the courts in antitrust merger cases. United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U. S. 654. The appraisal of competitive factors is grist for the antitrust mill. See, e. g., United States v. Philadelphia National Bank, supra, 357-367. The courts are not left at-large as planning agencies. The effect on competition is the standard; and it is a familiar one. If the anticompeti-tive effect is adverse, then it is to be excused only if “the convenience and needs of the community to be served” clearly outweigh it. We see no problems in bringing these standards into the area of judicial competence. There are no constitutional problems here not present in the “rule of reason” cases.
There is left only the stay issue; As we have seen, the 1966 Act provides that a timely antitrust action “shall stay the effectiveness of the agency’s approval unless the court shall otherwise specifically order.” 12 U. S. C. § 1828 (c)(7)(A). The lower courts dissolved the statutory stays on dismissing the antitrust suits.
Our remand will direct that the stays continue until the hearings below are completed and any appeal is had. A stay of course is not mandatory under any and all circumstances. But absent a frivolous complaint by the United States, which we presume will be infrequent, a stay is essential until the judicial remedies have been exhausted. The caption of the 1966 Act states that it is designed “[t]o establish a procedure for the review of proposed bank mergers so as to eliminate the necessity for the dissolution of merged banks.” Moreover, bank mergers may not, absent emergency conditions, be consummated until 30 days after approval by the Comptroller in order to enable the Attorney General to commence an antitrust action, 12 U. S. C. § 1828 (c)(6), which, apart from emergency situations, must be started within 30 days of the agency’s approval, 12 U. S. C. § 1828 (c)(7)(A). The legislative history is replete with references to the difficulty of unscrambling two or more banks after their merger. The normal procedure therefore should be maintenance of the status quo until the antitrust litigation has run its course, lest consummation take place and the unscrambling process that Congress abhorred in the case of banks be necessary.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Clark took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
12 U. S. C. §1828 (e)(5)(B) provides, as we have seen, that a merger shall not be approved “whose effect.in any section of the country may be substantially to lessen competition.” It is pointed out that that standard omits the phrase “in-any line of commerce” which is present in § 7 of the Clayton Act. It is argued that Con-' gress meant that commercial banking is no longer to be considered as an area of effective competition and that the Act establishes in banking “a market test measürable only by larger commercial realities.”
We do not reach this question and we intimate no opinion on it nor any views on the merits of these mergers or on the justifications that are urged in their support. All questions except the procedural ones treated in the opinion are reserved.
The Chairman of the Federal Reserve System testified in the hearings that preceded enactment of the Bank Merger Act of 1966 that “a Federal court order cannot recreate the two banks that formerly existed .... [N]o matter how one may feel about whether the merger should have taken place in the first instance, there is no turning back. To unscramble the resulting bank clearly'poses serious problems not only for the bank but for its customers and the community.” Hearings on S. 1698 and related bills before the Subcommittee on Domestic Finance of the Hous§. Committee on Banking and Currency, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 11. The president of the American Bankers Association declared that “ ‘[u]nmerging’ a bank after the two banks have operated as a single unit is nightmarish even in the abstract.” Hearings on S. 1698 before a Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 63.. Senator Robertson stated, “you are dealing with a physical impossibility,” and “the community gets hurt,” when divestiture is attempted in a bank merger case. Id., at 4. Senator Proxmire spoke of “the agony and the inequity and the financial loss, disruption of the economy in the community, of being required . . . to unscramble.” Id., at 202.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Brennan
announced the judgment of the Court, and delivered an opinion,
in which The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Black, and Mr. Justice Douglas join.
This case is here on writ of certiorari, 358 U. S. 892, to review petitioner’s suspension from the practice of law for one year, ordered by the Supreme Court of the Territory of Hawaii, 41 Haw. 403, and affirmed on appeal by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 260 F. 2d 189.
Petitioner has been a member of the Territorial Bar in Hawaii since 1941. For many months beginning in late 1952 she participated, in the United States District Court at Honolulu, as one of the defense counsel in the trial of an indictment against a number of defendants for conspiracy under the Smith Act, 18 U. S. C. § 2385. The trial was before Federal District Judge Jon Wiig and a jury. Both disciplinary charges against petitioner had to do with the Smith Act trial. One charge related to a speech she made about six weeks after the trial began. The speech was made on the Island of Hawaii, at Honokaa, a village some 182 miles from Honolulu, Oahu, on a Sunday morning. The other charge related to interviews she had with one of the jurors after the trial concluded.
The Bar Association of Hawaii preferred the charges which were referred by the Territorial Supreme Court to the Association’s Legal Ethics Committee for investigation. The prosecutor who represented the Government at the Smith Act trial conducted the investigation and presented the evidence before the Committee. The Committee submitted the record and its findings to the Territorial Supreme Court.- -Because the suspension seems to us to depend on it, see pp. 637-638, infra, we deal first with the charge relating to the speech. The gist óf the Committeé’s findings was that the petitioner’s speech reflected adversely -upon Judge Wiig’s impartiality and fairness in the conduct of the Smith Act trial and impugned his judicial integrity. The Committee concluded that petitioner “in imputing to the Judge unfairness in the conduct of the trial, in impugning the integrity of the local Federal courts and in other comments made at Honokaa, was guilty of violation of Canons 1 and 22 of the Canons of Professional Ethics of the Américan Bar Association and should be disciplined for the same.”. The Territorial Supreme Court held that “... she engaged and participated in a willful oral attack upon the administration of justice in and by the said United States District Court for the District of Hawaii and by direct statement and.implication impugned the integrity of the judge presiding therein... and thus tended to also create disrespect for the courts of justice' and judicial officers generally,... She has thus committed what this court considers gross misconduct.” 41 Haw., at 422-423,
We think that our review may be limited to the narrow question whether the facts adduced are capable of supr porting the findings that the petitioner’s speech impugned Judge Wiig’s impartiality and fairness in conducting the Smith Act trial and. thus reflected upon his integrity in the dispensation of justice in that case. We deal with the Court’s findings, not with “misconduct” in the abstract. Although the opinions in the Court of Appeals and the argument before us have tended in varying degrees to treat the petitioner’s suspension as discipline imposed for obstructing or attempting to obstruct the administration of justice, in a way to embarrass or influence the tribunal trying the case, such was neither the charge nor the finding of professional misconduct upon which the suspension was based. Since no obstruction or attempt, at obstruction of the trial was charged, and since it is clear to us that the finding upon which the suspension rests is not supportable by the evidence adduced, we have no occasion
to consider the applicability of Bridges v. California, 314 U. S. 252; Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U. S. 331; or Craig v. Harney, 331 U. S. 367, which have been extensively discussed in the briefs. We do not reach or intimate any conclusion on the constitutional issues presented. • Petitioner’s clients included labor unions, among them the International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union. Some of the defendants in the Smith Act trial were officers and members of that union and their defense was being supported by the union. The meeting at Honokaa was sponsored by the ILWU and was attended in large part by its members. The petitioner spoke extemporaneously and no transcript or recording was made of her speech. Precisely what she did say is a matter of dispute. Neither the Territorial Supreme.Court nor the Court of Appeals saw the witnesses, but both courts, on reading the record, resolved matters of evidentiary conflict in the fashion least favorable to the petitioner. For the purposes of our review here, we may do the same. The version of the petitioner’s speech principally relied upon by the Court of Appeals, 260 F. 2d, at 197-198, is- derived from notes made by a newspaper reporter, Matsuoka, who attended the meeting and heard what the petitioner, said. These were not Matsuoka’s original notes — the originals were lost — but an expanded version prepared by him at the direction of his newspaper superiors after interest in the speech was aroused by Matsuoka’s account of it in the newspaper. We set forth the notes in full as an Appendix to this opinion, and summarize them here, as an account of what petitioner said. The summary will illumine the basis of our conclusion that the finding that the petitioner’s speech impugned the integrity of Judge Wiig or reflected upon his impartiality and fairness in presiding at the Smith Act trial is without support. The fact finding below does not. remove this Court’s duty of examining the evidence to see whether it furnishes a rational basis for the characterization put on it by the lower courts. See Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U. S. 380.. Speculation cannot take over where the proofs fail. We conclude that there is no support for any further factual inference than that petitioner was voicing strong criticism of Smith Act eases and the Government’s manner of proving them, and that her references to the happenings at the Honolulu trial were illustrative of this, and. not a reflection in any wise upon Judge Wiig personally or his conduct of the trial.
Petitioner said that the Honolulu trial was really an effort to get at the ILWU. She wanted to tell about some “rather shocking and horrible things that go on at the trial.” -The defendants, she said, were being tried for reading books written before they were born. Jack Hall, one of the defendants, she said, was on trial because he had read the Communist Manifesto. She spoke of the nature of ciiiminaL conspiracy prosecutions, as she saw -1-*'''■ them, and charged that when the Government did not have enough evidence “it lumps a number together and says they agreed to do something.” “Conspiracy means to charge a lot of people for agreeing to do something you have never done.” She generally attacked the FBI, saying they spent too much time investigating people’s minds, and next dwelt further on the remoteness of the evidence in the case and the extreme youth of some of the defendants, at the time to which the evidence directly related. She said “no one has a mémory that good, yet they use this kind of testimony. Why? Because they will do anything and everything necessary to convict.” Government propaganda carried on for 10 years before the jurors entered the box, she charged, made it “enough to say a person is a communist to cook his goose.” She charged that some of the witnesses had given prior inconsistent testimony but that the Government went ahead and had them “say things in order to convict.” “Witnesses testify what Government tells them to.” The Government, she claimed, read in evidence for. two days Communist books because one of the defendants had once seen them in a duffel bag. Unless people informed.on such defendants, the FBI would try to make them lose their jobs. “There’s no such thing as a fair trial in a Smith Act case. All rules of evidence have to be scrapped or the Government can’t make a case.” She related how in anothér case (in the territorial courts) she was not allowed to put in evidence of a hearsay nature to exonerate a criminal defendant she was representing, but in the present case “a federal judge sitting on a federal bench permits Crouch [a witness] to testify about 27 years ago, what was said then... here they permit a witness to tell what was said when a defendant was five years old.” She then declared, “There’s no fair trial in the case. They just make up the rules as they go along.” She gave the example of the New York Smith Act trial before Judge Medina, see Dennis v. United States, 341 U. S. 494, where she claimed “The Government can’t make a case if it tells just what they did so they widened the rules and tell- what other people did years ago, including everything including the kitchen sink.” She declared, “Unless we stop the Smith trial in its tracks here there will be a new crime. People will be charged with knowing what is included in books — ideas.” Petitioner said in conclusion that if things went on the freedom to read and freedom of thought and action would be subverted. She urged her auditors to go out and explain what a vicious thing the Smith Act was.
The specific utterances in the speech that the Legal Ethics Committee and the Supreme Court found as furnishing the basis for the findings that petitioner impugned Judge Wiig’s integrity were the references (which we have quoted in full above) to “horrible and shocking” things at the trial;- the impossibility of a fair trial; the necessity, if the Government’s case were to be proved, of scrapping the rules of evidence; and the creation of new crimes unless the trial were stopped at once. We examine these points in particular, though of course we must do so in the context of the whole speech. In so doing we accept as obviously correct the ruling of the courts below that petitioner’s remarks were not a mere generalized discourse on Smith Act prosecutions but included particular references to the case going on in Honolulu.
I. We start with the proposition that lawyers are free to criticize the state of the law. Many lawyers say that the rules of evidence relative to the admission of statements by those alleged to be co-conspirators are overbroad or otherwise unfair and unwise; that there are dangers to defendants, of a sort against which trial judges cannot protect them, in the trial of numerous persons jointly for conspiracy; and that a Smith Act trial is apt to become a trial of ideas. Others disagree. But all are free to express their views on these matters, and no one would say that this sort of criticism constituted an improper attack on the judges who enforced such rules and who presided at the trials. This is so, even though the existence of questionable rules of law might be said in a sense to produce unfair trials. Such criticism simply cannot be equated with an attack on the motivation or the integrity or the competence of the judges. And surely permissible criticism may as well be made to a lay audience as to a professional; oftentimes the law is modified through popular criticism; Bentham’s strictures on the state of the common law and Dickens’ novels come to mind. And needless to say, a lawyer may criticize the law-enforcement agencies of the Government, and the prosecution, even to the extent of suggesting wrongdoing on their part, without by that token impugning the judiciary. Simply to charge, for example, the prosecution with the knowing use of perjured testimony in a case is not to imply in the slightest any complicity by the judge in such actions. To charge that the Government makes overmuch use of the conspiracy form of criminal prosecution, and this to bolster weak cases, is not to suggest any unseemly complicity by the judiciary in the practice.
In large part, if not entirely, Matsuoka’s notes of petitioner’s speech do not reveal her as doing more thstn this. She dwelt.extensively on the nature of Smith Act trials and on conspiracy prosecutions. The Honolulu trial, to be sure, was the setting for her remarks, but they do hot indicate more than that she referred to it as a typical, present example of the evils thought to be attendant on such trials. The specific statements found censurable (without which the bringing of the charge would have been inconceivable) are not in the least inconsistent with this, even though they must be taken to relate to the trial in progress. These specific statements are hardly damning by themselves, and clearly call for the light examination in context may give them; so examined, they do not furnish any basis for a finding of professional, misconduct. She said that there were “horrible” and “shocking” things going on at the trial, but this remark, introductory to the speech, of course was in the context of what she further said about conspiracy prosecutions, Smith Act trials, and the prosecution’s conduct. Petitioner’s statement that a fair trial was impossible in context obviously related to the state of law and to the conduct of the prosecution and the FBI, not to anything that Judge Wiig personally was doing or failing to do. It occurred immediately after an account, of the FBI’s alleged pressuring of witnesses. The same seems clearly the case with the. remark about the necessity of scrapping the rules of evidence. The statement that if the trial went on to a conviction, new crimes — those of thought or ideas — would be created could hardly be thought to reflect on the. trial judge’s integrity no matter how divorced from context it be considered. How any of this reflected on Judge Wiig, except insofar as he might be thought to lose stature because he was a judge in a legal system said to be full of imperfections, is not shown. To say that “the law is a ass, a idiot” is not to impugn the character of those who must administer it. 'To say that prosecutors are corrupt is not to impiign the character of judges who might be unaware of it, or be able to find no method under the law of restraining them, Judge Wiig was not by name mentioned in the speech, and there was virtually none of petitioner’s complaints that was phrased in terms of what “the judge” was doing. For aught that appears from petitioner’s speech, Judge Wiig might have been totally out of sympathy, as a personal matter, with the Smith Act, the practice of trying criminal offenses on a conspiracy basis, and the rules of evidence in conspiracy trials, but felt bound to apply the law as laid down by higher courts.
Even if some passages can be found which go so far as to imply that Judge Wiig was taking an erroneous view; of the law — perhaps the comparison made between the case in the Territorial Courts where a hearsay statement was excluded and the admission of evidence in the Smith Act case might be of this nature, and much is made of it here though the Committee and the courts below madé nothing of- it — we think there was still nothing in the speech warranting the findings. If Judge Wiig was said to be wrong on his law, it is no matter; appellate courts and law reviews say that of judges daily, and it imputes no disgrace. Dissenting opinions in our reports are apt to make petitioner’s speech, look like tame stuff indeed. Petitioner did not say Judge Wiig was corrupt or venal or stupid or incompetent. The -public attribution of honest error to the judiciary is no cause for professional. discipline in this country. See In re Ades, 6 F. Supp. 467, 481. It may be said that some of the audience would infer improper collusion with the. prosecution from a charge of error prejudicing the defense. Some lay persons may not be able to- imagine legal error without venality or collusion, but it will not do -to set our standards by their reactions. We can indulge in no involved specu-/ lation as to petitioner’s guüt by reason of die imaginations of others.
But it is said that while it may be proper for an attorney to say the law is unfair Qr that judges are in error as a general matter, it is wrong for counsel of record to say so during a pending case. The. verbalization is that it is impermissible to litigate by day and castigate by night. See 260 F. 2d, at 202. This line seems central to the Bar Association’s argument, as it appears to have been to the reasoning of the court below, and the dissent here is much informed by it, but to us it seems totally to ignore the charges made and the findings. The findings were that petitioner impugned the integrity of Judge Wiig and made an improper attack on his administration of justice in the Honolulu trial. A lawyer does not acquire any license to do these things by not being presently engaged in a case. They are equally serious whether he currently is engaged in litigation before the judge or not. We can conceive no ground whereby the pendency of litigation might be thought to make an attorney’s out-of-court remarks more censurable, other than that they might tend to obstruct the administration of justice. Remarks made during the course of a trial might tend to such obstruction where remarks made afterwards would not. But this distinction is foreign to this case, because the charges and findings in no way turn on an allegation of obstruction of justice, or of an attempt to obstruct justice, in a pending case. To the charges made and found, it is irrelevant whether the Smith Act case was still pending. Judge Wiig remained equally protected from statements impugning him, and petitioner remained equally free to make critical statements that did not cross that line. We find that hers cannot be said to have done so. Accordingly, the suspension order, based on the charge relating to the speech, cannot stand.
II. Petitioner was also charged by the Committee, and found by the Supreme Court, to have misconducted herself by’interviewing a juror shortly after the completion of the Smith. Act trial. The juror had become mentally unsettled, in an obvious fashion, very shortly after the rendition of- the verdict and apparently as a result of his participation on the jury. It was at this point that petitioner; having been first requested by his sister, several times interviewed him, and spoke with members of his family. The Supreme Court recognized that it had been common practice for attorneys in the Territory to interrogate jurors after the rendition of. their verdicts and their discharges. Nevertheless, it found her action professional misconduct. The versions of the witnesses as to exactly what transpired at the interviews varied considerably, but the court made no findings of fact on the matter, and it is difficult to grasp the basis on which it singled petitioner’s juror interviews out for censure against the pattern of a common practice of such interviews in the. Territory. While there is clearly some delicacy involved in approaching a juror who has become mentally unsettled, evidence that a juror was incompetent at the time of the rendition of the verdict might be admissible to impeach a verdict where evidence of the jury’s mental and reasoning processes is not. While the interviews were undertaken under unusual circumstances, it is difficult to say whether the circumstances furnish more or less justification than is present in the average juror interview — which we do not read the Supreme Court’s opinion as holding censurable, except as to the future. The Legal Ethics Committee had charged petitioner with concealment of facts in her affidavit as to the juror interview filed with Judge Wiig in support of her motion for a new trial for the Smith Act defendants, but we do not find anything in the Supreme Court’s opinion agreeing with these charges.
But we need not explore further what the basis was for the Territorial Supreme Court’s finding on this charge.,As to it, the court said that the suspension order it rendered on the charge relating to the speech would suffice. The Court of Appeals was of opinion that if the charge as to the speech were insupportable, in the present posture of the case the suspension could not stand, 260 F. 2d, at 202, and we agree. We cannot read the Supreme Court’s opinion as imposing any penalty solely by reason of the interview with the juror. Accordingly, we do not believe it would be appropriate in the posture of the case for us finally to adjudicate the validity of the finding of misconduct by reason of the interviews.
III. The Court of Appeals expressed doubt as to its jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the Territorial Supreme Court, and respondent here urges that that court was without jurisdiction. Since our jurisdiction to hear the case on the merits must stand or fall with that of the Court of Appeals, we examine the objections. They are without merit. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction of appeals from final judgments of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Hawaii, pursuant to 28 XL S. C. § 1293, in “civil cases where the value in controversy exceeds $5,000, exclusive of interest and costs.” The suspension order would have the effect of removing petitioner from the practice of law for at least one year, and she filed an uncontroverted affidavit that her annual net income from the practice of law had been for years, and would continue foreseeably, in excess of $5,000. It is insisted that petitioner’s right cannot be reduced to monetary terms, because it is “priceless,” and so it is, in a manner of speaking; but besides the professional aspects of her status, her continuance in a specific form of gainful employment is in issue, see Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 355, and hence the jurisdictional amount was present.
Finally, we find no inhibition as to the scope of review we have given the judgment of the Territorial Court. The Territorial Court is one created under the sovereignty of the National Government, O’Donoghue v. United States, 289 U. S. 516, 535, and hence this Court (once the jurisdictional Act is satisfied) is not limited as it would be in reviewing the judgment of the highest court of a State. Of course this Court and the Courts of-Appeals must give the Territorial Courts freedom in developing principles of local law, and in interpreting local legislation. See Bonet v. Texas Co., 308 U. S. 463; DeCastro v. Board of Commissioners, 322 U. S. 451, 454-458. But it hardly needs elaboration to make it clear that the question of the total insufficiency of the evidence to sustain a serious charge of professional misconduct, against a backdrop of the claimed constitutional rights of an attorney to speak as freely as another citizen, is not one which can be subsumed under the headings of local practice, customs or law.
Reversed.
[For concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Black, see post, p. 646.]
[For opinion of Mr. Justice Stewart, concurring in the result, see post, p. 646.]
[For dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Frankfurter, joined by Mr. Justice Clark, Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Whittaker, see post, p. 647.]
[For dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Clark, see post, p. 669.]
APPENDIX TO OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN.
THE EXPANDED NOTES OF THE REPORTER, MATSUOKA, RELATIVE TO petitioner’s SPEECH..
“She followed Samuel M. Bento, who said he wanted to say good morning to the Tribune-Herald, pointing generally toward the paper’s reporter from Ftilo and the paper’s Honokaa correspondent who were sitting side by side. Mrs. Sawyer preceded Jack W. Hall. She began speaking at 11 a. m. and,ended 11:30 a. m.
“Notes on what she said in the order of how she proceeded: The' trial is really a trial of Jack Hall to which has been added six others. It’s to get at the ILWU.
“Said she wanted to tell about some rather shocking and horrible things that go on at the trial.
“She was appointed some years ago (3 or 4 years ago) by a court to defend a man who had no money to hire his own counsel. He was charged with pimping and procuring. The complaining witness in the case was a woman who had been in business 20 years in the territory who claimed she had reformed and repented but this vicious man had driven her back again into the business. It turned out that the hotel where he had kept her had 27 doors unlocked. Likened this to pukas in the Smith act.
“Said men in power are trying to put men in jail because of their thoughts, and books written before he was born.
“One of the reasons Jack Hall is on trial is because it is said he once got a book, the Communist Manifesto, written in 1898, before Jack Hall was a gleam in his father’s eye.
“She quoted from manifesto: a spectre is haunting Europe; the spectre is communism, she explained spectre means ghost, said spectre still seems to be haunting people today.
“She turned next to conspiracy, noted there was a conspiracy trial in 1937 of filipino brothers, conspiracy to advocate violence and criminal sindicalism. explained conspiracy means agreement, government never has used conspiracy when it had a case, when it hasn’t got enough evidence it lumps a number together and says they agreed to do something., the government does hot say.. advocated overthrow but says they agreed to. Conspiracy means to charge a lot of people for agreeing to do something you have never done.
“touched on myth of agents of fbi. they’re supposed to be extra special, radio programs, movies, publicity tell how wonderful they are. but when you see hundreds of tax fraud cases go by and when they spend most of ■ their time investigating people’s minds it’s time to cut them down to size, said she had told this to a honolulu gathering, labor day? fbi agents should be called -federal cops, said has slogan: put away your thoughts here come the federal cops, cops push people around.
“paul crouch, difficult to understand why he’s witness, but he was here in 1924; because he was once in Hawaii, so guess that’s why. he testified what he did in russia in 1927. he told what he was told by generals etc. usually you cannot testify on what people told you when there is no chance for those to be cross examined, aileen fujimoto was four years old then, what has crouch’s galloping over the. plains of russia got any bearing on her. jack hall was 13. but the government goes on with testimony for two weeks on what crouch did between 1927 and 1941 without ever mentioning the defendants, “he told of/infiltration of the armed forces and plots... it used to be the idea.that a man is responsible.for what he did and said — not what someone else did. not a single one of the defendants was of age at the time he’s talking about, the jury is not going to pay attention to what Crouch says, but it’s the old smear. The prosecution says crouch did this and that and we (prosecution) say the defendants are communist party members so they must have done the same.
“but government propaganda has -been going on for 10 years before the jurors went into the jury box.'
“it’s enough to say a person is a communist to cook his goose, the government says there was an agreement to violate the smith act which was passed in 1940. then the defendants agreed to violate it before it was passed, crouch said he was at a communist meeting in 1941 and saw five or six people there, it was the first time he’d seen them, but he was satisfied when he came to honolulu 12 years latér that one was Koji Ariyoshi. she Urged audience’ try to recall what they did 12 years ago. said she can’t recall details, god knows no one has a memory that good, yet they use this kind of testimony.
“why? because they will do anything and everything, necessary to convict.
“some of the witnesses testified differently from what they testified previously, the government knows this but deliberately goes ahead and have him say things in order to convict, mentioned izuka in reinecke trial testimony, said something about izuka saying he didn’t know the party advocated overthrow of government until he got out of party.
“witnesses testify what government tells them to. just as they read portions of books like overthrow the government and leave out the rest which says czarist government showing it dealt with russia.
“johnson testimony, said he came back from san francisco with communist books and literature in a duffle bag. he said when he got to Honolulu he told Jack Hall the names of some of the books, then the government for two days're^ds from books supposed to have been in the duffel bag. they’re not dealing with what jack hall said, on cross examination johnson said he did not tell the names of the books but just showed jack hall the duffel bag. so jack hall violated the smith act because he saw a duffel bag with some books on overthrowing the government in it.. it’s silly, why does the government use your money and mine to put people in jail for thoughts
“the government has carried on a barrage of propaganda for many years and ‘expects people in the jury to have hysteria just hearing about communist is enough to jail, said has a friend who worked for sears roebuck and has family of three children and wife, he made a terrible mistake one time, in 1941 he lived in the same house as jack hall, the fbi wanted him to testify, he said i feel jack hall is one of the finest people i have known, apparently the fbi didn’t like this, so they suggested to sears and roebuck to fire him because he wouldn’t cooperate with the government.
“he wasn’t fired so they went to the Los Angeles and Chicago offices of sears and roebuck and convinced them he had to-be fired, he was fired because he refused to be a stool pigeon and informer, the government gets away with it by making people fear that if they don’t do as it wants they’ll be branded red and lose their jobs.
, “there’s no such thing as a fair trial in a smith act case, all rules of evidence have to be scrapped or the government can’t make a case.
“referred to her habeas corpus move in the palakiko— majors case.
“said a woman came to her with report she heard vernon stevens say he bet a confession out of one of them, she testified but the supreme court refused to let the evidence in because vernon stevens was not here and had no chanee,to deny this, with the same situation a federal judge sitting on a federal bench permits crouch to testify about 27 years ago. what was said then, in the previous case it was the life and death of one. and yet here they permit a witness to tell what was said when a defendant was five years old.
“there’s no fair trial in the case, they just make up the rules as they go along, the first smith act case was in 1949 of the new york top leaders, attorneys contended they should have the right to say what they did from 1924. medina permitted them to say what the defendants themselves did from 1934 on. but the government can’t make a case if it tells just what they did so they widened the rules and tell what other people did years ago, including everything including the kitchen sink.
“unless we stop the smith trial in its tracks here there will be a new crime, people will be charged with knowing what is included in books, ideas.
“mentioned los angeles trial in which someone said there was no evidence that someone had instructed persons not to read some books.
“said there’ll come a time when the only thing to do is to keep your children from learning how to read, then' not only will unions be destroyed by [sic] so will freedom' of thoughts and action, there’ll be dark ages of thought control when people won’t be able to speak freely in taverns and other places.
“she urged audience to go, out and explain what a vicious thing the smith act is. people are tried for books written years ago.”
Mr. Justice Black, concurring.
Assuming that there is a specific law of some kind in Hawaii which purports to authorize, petitioner’s suspension or disbarment upon the charges against her, I agree with Mr. Justice Brennan, for the reasons he gives, that the charges were not proved. My agreement is not to be considered however as indicating a belief that Hawaii has such a law, that it would be valid if it existed, or that petitioner was given the kind of trial which federal courts must constitutionally afford before imposing such a drastic punishment as was inflicted on petitioner.
Mr. Justice. Stewart, concurring in the result.
If, as suggested by my Brother Frankfurter, there runs through, the principal opinion an intimation that a lawyer can invoke the constitutional right of free speech to immunize himself from even-handed discipline for proven unethical conduct, it is an intimation in which I do not join. A lawyer belongs to a profession with inherited standards of propriety and honor, which experience has shown necessary in a calling dedicated to the accomplishment of justice. He who would follow that calling must conform to those standards.
Obedience to ethical precepts may require abstention from what in other circumstances might be constitutionally protected speech. For example, I doubt that »a physician who broadcast the confidential disclosures of his patients could rely on the constitutional right of free speech to protect him from professional discipline.
In the present case, if it had been charged or if it had been found that the petitioner attempted to obstruct or prejudice the due administration of justice by interfering with a fair trial, this would be the kind of a case to which the language of the dissenting opinion seems largely directed. But that was not the charge here, and it is not the ground upon which the petitioner has been disciplined. Because I agree with the conclusion that there is not enough in this record to support the charge and the findings growing out of the petitioner’s speech in Honokaa, I concur in the Court’s judgment.
Me. Justice Frankfurter, whom Mr. Justice Clark, Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Whittaker join, dissenting.
Petitioner was suspended from the practice of law in the Territory of Hawaii for one year. The charges on which the suspension order was based related (1) to a speech made by petitioner'at Honokaa, Hawaii, while a criminal trial was in progress, in Honolulu, in which she Was attorney of record and an active lawyer for the defense, and (2) to petitioner’s interview of a juror, after the trial had terminated in a verdict of guilty. The judge presiding at the trial requested the Bar Association to investigate Mrs. Sawyer’s conduct. Following investigation, charges and a recommendation of disciplinary action were filed with the Hawaii Supreme Court which referred the matter to its Legal Ethics Committee. Following a full hearing the Committee, in the main, agreed with the charges of the Bar Association and submitted its conclusion to the Hawaii Supreme Court which made a de novo examination of the record, resulting in the order now before us. The suspension order was based upon the Honokaa speech, although the Hawaii Supreme Court also found that the interview of the juror, in view of the circumstances under which it was made, constituted professional misconduct. The Court today finds the conclusions of the Hawaii Supreme Court, on which the suspension order is based, wanting in a reasonable foundation and directs the Hawaii court to readmit Mrs. Sawyer to the practice of law. Since this Court finds that the suspension order was grounded on the speech, it leaves unreviewed the finding of professional misconduct growing out of the juror interview. When the casé goes back to Hawaii, the Hawaii Supreme Court is apparently free to take further disciplinary
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
A District Court of three judges enjoined in part an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission, and the case is here on appeal under 28 U. S. C. §§ 47, 47a, and 345. The Commission order specifically relates to the railroad rate for grain transported from Chicago, Illinois, to New York and other eastern points, after that grain has been transported to Chicago from the west by connecting rail or water carriers on through bills of lading. In such through shipments the through rate is a combination of distinctly separate rates charged respectively for shipments from the west to Chicago and from Chicago to the east. The charge fixed for the last leg of the shipment is called, in railroad parlance, a “reshipping” or “proportional” rate. It is lower from Chicago to the east than a “local” rate charged for a shipment from Chicago to the east which originates in Chicago. See Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. United States, 279 U. S. 768, 771.
For many years eastern railroads have carried grain east from Chicago at reshipping rates 8% cents per hundred pounds lower than local rates. Up to 1939 this Chicago-to-the-east reshipping rate had been identical for grain, whether brought to Chicago by a connecting railroad, connecting lake steamer, or connecting barge. Although barge lines were much slower than railroads, they were less expensive to operate and therefore could afford to transport freight much more cheaply than railroads. The result was that the barge-rail rate from a point in the west to eastern destinations was considerably cheaper than the all-rail rate from that point—the difference being measured by the relative cheapness of shipping over the barge leg of the through route. Because of the cheaper barge rates, much of the railroads’ grain freight business from localities which could be served by either barge or rail shifted to the barges after 1933 when barge service from western grain localities to Chicago was resumed. This was the barge versus rail competitive situation which existed when in 1939 the eastern railroads filed schedules with the Commission which imposed on ex-barge grain the local rate from Chicago east, but allowed ex-rail and ex-lake grain the benefit of the 8% cent lower “reshipping” rates on the eastern haul. The result of this rate schedule would have been that, although barge lines could still have carried grain from the west to Chicago much more cheaply than the railroads could, by the time the grain had been reshipped to New York or other eastern points, the barge-rail carriage would have been more expensive to the shipper than all-rail carriage. This would have put the barge lines at a competitive disadvantage with railroads in barge-served localities. At the Commission hearing to test the validity of the higher ex-barge grain rates, a railroad representative candidly stated that the purpose of the proposal was to “drive this business off the water and back onto the rails where it belongs.” 248 I. C. C. 307, 321. This purpose would most probably have been accomplished had the high ex-barge reshipping rates gone into effect.
The Commission, after a hearing, made an order which left the railroad-proposed higher rates in effect, but stated that “in a proper proceeding we might prescribe proportional rates on the ex-barge traffic lower than local rates or joint barge-rail rates lower than the combinations.” 248 I. C. C. 307, 311. A District Court set aside the Commission’s order on the ground that fixing higher rates for ex-barge grain than for ex-rail and ex-lake grain “discriminates against water competition by the users of barges.” Cargill, Inc. v. United States, 44 F. Supp. 368, 375. On appeal this Court reversed, saying that its decision carried “no implication of approval of any rates here involved.” Interstate Commerce Commission v. Inland Waterways Corp., 319 U. S. 671, 691. It reserved for future consideration in a proceeding before the Commission the amount, if any, which the eastern railroads could increase “reshipping” rates for ex-barge over those for ex-lake and ex-rail grain. Id. at 687-688, 691.
The Commission has now considered and decided that question in a proper proceeding. 262 I. C. C. 7. It found the originally proposed 8% cent higher rates for ex-barge grain to be unlawful and required the eastern roads to cancel the schedules fixing those increased reshipping rates. This part of the Commission’s order has not been challenged. But it also concluded that ex-barge grain rates east from Chicago would be reasonable and lawful even though they were 3 cents per hundred pounds higher than rates for ex-rail and ex-lake grain. Consequently, the Commission provided that its order cancelling the scheduled reshipping rate increase was “without prejudice to the filing of new schedules in conformity with the findings herein.” Thus, the effect of the whole order was to permit, if not require, the railroads to charge higher reshipment rates for ex-barge than for ex-lake and ex-rail grain. Under these rates, barge-rail grain shipments would be a trifle less expensive than all-rail transportation between the same points. But the through barge-rail transportation would cost more than it would have if the through rates had accurately reflected the cheaper in-bound barge rates. The Commission considered these higher rates for ex-barge grain, which resulted in higher through rates, justified so long as there remained to ex-barge grain “a fair opportunity to move in competition with lake-rail and all-rail traffic.”
Appellees then filed this action in the District Court against the Commission and the United States to cancel, annul, and enjoin enforcement of the order, insofar as it permitted the railroads to put these new higher ex-barge grain rates into effect. The complaints charged that the order was in violation of the Interstate Commerce Act as amended by the Transportation Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 898. It was contended that the order was void because it approved railroad rates which penalized ex-barge grain to the extent of 3 cents per hundred pounds, solely because the grain had been transported to Chicago in barges, and without evidence or adequate findings that it cost the railroads 3 cents more to transport ex-barge than it cost to transport ex-rail or ex-lake grain. The United States, represented by the Department of Justice, appearing as a defendant, admitted these allegations. The Interstate Commerce Commission intervened and defended the order. After a hearing, the District Court found that the allegations were sustained. Accordingly, it set aside and enjoined enforcement of the order to the extent that it permitted the 3-cent extra charge. The result of the District Court’s judgment was to leave in effect the long-existing eastern railroad rates which provide the same rates for carrying ex-barge, ex-lake, and ex-rail grain east from Chicago.
Judicial review of the findings of fact and the expert judgments of the Interstate Commerce Commission where the Commission acts within its statutory authority is extremely limited. And § 307 (d) of the 1940 Act authorizes the Commission “in the case of a through route” to “prescribe such reasonable differentials as it may find to be justified between all-rail rates and the joint rates in connection with such common carrier by water.” Cf. United States v. Chicago Heights Trucking Co., 310 U. S. 344, 352-353; Board of Trade of Kansas City v. United States, 314 U. S. 534, 546. But the congressional debates and committee reports on the 1940 Act and the statutory provisions which emerged from this legislative background show that Congress enunciated positive policies and specific limiting standards which it expected the Commission to follow in fixing rates, including “differentials” between all-rail and water-rail rates. The provisions of the Transportation Act of 1940 which brought water carriers under Interstate Commerce Commission jurisdiction were vigorously opposed in Congress by those who feared that the Commission might raise barge rates in order to enable railroads better to compete with inherently cheaper water transportation. These opponents were repeatedly assured by sponsors of the 1940 Act who advocated Commission regulation of water transportation that the questioned legislation unequivocally required the Commission to fix rates which would preserve for shippers the inherent advantages of barge transportation: lower cost of equipment, operation, and therefore service. As Senator Wheeler, spokesman of the Interstate Commerce Committee of which he was chairman, pointed out on the floor of the Senate, the 1940 Act contains at least three separate provisions, a prime purpose of which is to protect the water carrier’s natural advantages. The Act’s declaration of policy emphasizes that the Act must be “so administered as to recognize and preserve the inherent advantages” of “all modes of transportation subject to . . . this Act.” 54 Stat. 898, 899, 49 U. S. C. notes preceding §§ 1, 301, 901. In order that the inherent advantages might be preserved § 305 (c), 54 Stat. 898, 935, 49 U. S. C. § 905 (c), provided that “Differences in . . . rates . . . and practices of a water carrier in respect of water transportation from those in effect by a rail carrier with respect to rail transportation shall not be deemed to constitute unjust discrimination ... or an unfair or destructive competitive practice . . . .” And § 307 (f), 54 Stat. 898, 938, 49 U. S. C. §907 (f), requiring the Commission, in fixing rates, to consider “the effect of rates upon the movement of traffic by the . . . carriers for which the rates are prescribed,” emphasized that the Commission must consider in fixing rates “. . . the need, in the public interest, of adequate and efficient water transportation service at the lowest cost consistent with the furnishing of such service . . . .” In addition § 3 (4) of the pre-existing Act which forbade carriers to “discriminate in their rates, fares, and charges between connecting lines,” 41 Stat. 479, was amended by the 1940 Act specifically to include water carriers, such as these barge lines, within the definition of connecting carriers. 54 Stat. 898, 903-904, 49 U. S. C. § 3 (4). Finally § 2 of the pre-existing Act has long forbidden the Commission to authorize railroads to charge one person more than another for “a like and contemporaneous service in the transportation of a like kind of traffic under substantially similar circumstances and conditions 24 Stat. 379, 380, 40 U. S. C. § 2.
The foregoing provisions flatly forbid the Commission to approve barge rates or barge-rail rates which do not preserve intact the inherent advantages of cheaper water transportation, but discriminate against water carriers and the goods they transport. Concretely, the provisions mean in this case that Chicago-to-the-east railroads cannot lawfully charge more for carrying ex-barge than for carrying ex-lake or ex-rail grains to and from the same localities, unless the eastern haul of the ex-barge grain costs the eastern railroads more to haul than does ex-rail or ex-lake grain. And § 307 (d), authorizing the Commission to fix differentials as between through water-rail and through all-rail rates, does not authorize the Commission to neutralize the effective prohibitions of the other provisions which were strengthened in 1940 expressly to prevent a discrimination against water carriers.
The basic error of the Commission here is that it seemed to act on the assumption that the congressional prohibitions of railroad rate discriminations against water carriers were not applicable to such discriminations if accomplished by through rates. But this assumption would permit the destruction or curtailment of the advantages to shippers of cheap barge transportation whenever the transported goods were carried beyond the end of the barge line. This case proves that. For while Chicago is a great grain center, it cannot consume all barge-transported grain. That grain, like other grain coming to Chicago for marketing or processing, is reshipped to distant destinations. To penalize its transportation in barges by charging discriminatory rates from Chicago to its final destination has precisely the same consequence as would follow from raising barge rates inbound to Chicago. Recognizing that it could not require these barge carriers to raise these inbound rates which it accepted as reasonable, the Commission has here approved an order which would bring about the same prohibited result by raising the railroad rates charged by eastern roads for ex-barge grain shipments east from Chicago. Congress has forbidden this.
The Commission did not approve increases in these reshipping rates on the ground that the eastern roads were not receiving a fair return for carrying ex-barge grain. And the grounds on which the Commission rested its order do not support the rates approved. Most of the argument of the Commission in support of its conclusions and order treated matters which had no relation to what the reshipping rates from Chicago should be. The length of the total barge-rail haul emphasized by the Commission, however significant it might be under other circumstances, has no relevance here. For the lower rates allowed ex-rail and ex-lake grains include carriage for distances identical with the ex-barge hauls. Nor is the Commission’s order supported by its conclusion that it is “inequitable” for the barges to charge a much lower rate for the inbound grain haul than the competitive western railroads can afford to charge for the same haul, resulting in barge-rail rates lower than all-rail rates from the same localities. For this is no reason for authorizing a higher rate to eastern railroads which do not compete with the barges at all. If the western railroads need relief from the competition of barges, that is a question wholly unrelated to the rates of eastern roads. Furthermore, Congress has decided this question of equitable rates as between railroads and barges. It has declared in unmistakable terms that the “inherent advantage” of the lower cost of barge carriage as compared with that of railroads must be passed on to those who ship by barge. It is therefore not within the province of the Commission to adjust rates, either to equalize the transportation cost of barge shippers with that of shippers who do not have access to barge service or to protect the traffic of railroads from barge competition. For Congress left the Commission no discretionary power to approve any type of rates which would reduce the “inherent advantage” of barge transportation in whole or in part. Cf. Mitchell v. United States, 313 U. S. 80, 97.
Related to the question just discussed, is the Commission’s contention here that permitting reshipping rates for ex-barge grain to remain equal to the rates for ex-rail and ex-lake grain will cause “incurable chaos” in and disrupt the national rail rate structure which reflects many interrelated conditions governing the transportation of grain from west of Chicago to eastern markets. The Commission does not show how any possible disruption of railroad rate structure arises from giving shippers the full inherent advantage of cheaper barge rates, other than that competing railroads have lost traffic to the barge lines. As we have pointed out, Congress knew that barge line rates were cheaper than rail rates, wanted the shippers to get full benefit of them, and left the Commission no power to take that benefit away from shippers by adjusting rail-barge traffic competition or rates. But we note incidentally that these rates had been equal prior to 1939 without any apparent disruption of the total structure. The possibility of such a disruption does not remotely justify discriminations against barge traffic which actually deprive shippers and the barge companies of the inherent advantages of water transportation guaranteed to them by Congress. See United States v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 294 U. S. 499, 506-510. Nor is the fact that barge-rail rates, from certain places in the west through Chicago to the east, are less than local rail rates from Chicago east, an adequate reason for increasing the east-of-Chicago part of the through barge-rail rate. The initiation of new rates with such a disparity in through rail rates as compared with local rail rates would, of course, be forbidden by § 4 of the Act as amended in the absence of Commission approval. But, insofar as the inherent cheapness of the barge leg of the through route produces a disparity between barge-rail rates and local rail rates, Congress has said that the Act must be so administered as to preserve, not eliminate or reduce the disparity.
Carriage of ex-barge grain by eastern roads may conceivably entail more service and therefore greater costs than are involved in carrying ex-rail or ex-lake grain. If so, the eastern roads may, in certain circumstances, be justified in receiving an extra charge for that extra service wherever it is rendered. But the extra service must fit the extra charge and cannot justify lump sum rate increases which cut into the inherent advantages of cheaper barge transportation which Congress intended to guarantee to shippers. Here the Commission found in broad general terms, without limitation to the localities where barge and rail compete, that “on the average” ex-rail grain from all the west requires less terminal and transit service east of Chicago than does grain moving by barge from the relatively few barge terminals. As to terminal service, it noted that some rail grain traffic going through Chicago without stopping receives no terminal service at all, whereas all barge grain shipments must be unloaded in Chicago and reloaded on freight cars. But all ex-lake grain reshipped from Chicago and an unspecified amount of ex-rail grain stopped in Chicago for processing requires exactly the same terminal service as is rendered there for ex-barge grain. Yet there is no greater rate charged for ex-barge and ex-rail grain which receives this same terminal service. The formula used here which lumps all through rail grain rates, irrespective of the services rendered, to give rail-carried grain a preferred rate over barge-carried grain, is indistinguishable in cause and consequence from an order which directly raises barge rates to relieve the railroads from barge competition. In any event, there has been no showing by the Commission as to how much, if any, of the 3-cent reshipping rate increase is attributable to the fact that ex-barge grain requires more terminal service on the average than does ex-rail grain.
The Commission also pointed out in its decision that rail rates from the west to Chicago (which we must assume on this record are fair and reasonable for the services performed) permit three transit stops west of Chicago without extra charge. Thus some ex-rail grain, unlike ex-barge and ex-lake grain, has already been processed en route to or in Chicago before it ever reaches the eastern lines, reducing the likelihood that it will require further transit service on the route from Chicago to the east. But ex-lake grain which enjoys the proportional rates with the approval of the Commission apparently is not processed before arriving at Chicago, or before reshipment on the eastern lines, and consequently requires the same transit service on the eastern haul as is required by ex-barge grain. Similar transit service is required for the unspecified amounts of ex-rail grain not processed east of Chicago. But the Commission made no finding that the eastern reshipping rates permit transit service east of Chicago without extra charge. Probably the reason that it did not make such a finding is that carriers usually make a specific extra charge for transit service. See Central R. Co. of N. J. v. United States, 257 U. S. 247; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. United States, supra, 777, 780. And the record here shows that eastern railroads make extra charges for transit service rendered ex-barge grain east of Chicago. The Commission makes no showing why, if the existing railroad charges for each individual transit operation is insufficient to cover that operation’s costs, those charges cannot be adjusted alike for the ex-rail, ex-lake, and ex-barge shipments which require this service. In any event, partial compensation of eastern roads for additional transit costs cannot be made in a manner which singles out ex-barge grain for discriminatory treatment in violation of the Interstate Commerce Act.
To justify increasing the reshipping rates of ex-barge grain the Commission would have to make findings supported by evidence to show how much greater is the cost to the eastern roads of reshipping ex-barge grain than of reshipping ex-lake or ex-rail grain moving from the same localities and requiring the same service as does the ex-barge grain. Cf. Florida v. United States, 282 U. S. 194, 212; North Carolina v. United States, 325 U. S. 507, 520. The unsifted averages put forward by the Commission do not measure the allegedly greater costs nor indeed show that they exist.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter would sustain the order of the Interstate Commerce Commission, because he deems it amply supported by adequate findings of the Commission differentiating the average circumstances and conditions surrounding all-rail and lake-rail transportation from those affecting barge-rail transportation, 262 I. C. C. 27-28, and these findings are not without support in evidence.
The eastern points are in New York and adjacent states and in New England. It is around shipments from Chicago to this territory that this rate controversy chiéfly revolves. The proposed new rate increases also related to grain shipments from Chicago to the so-called central territory. The reasons supporting the conclusion we reach apply equally to the central territory increases, and consequently we need not treat them separately.
See 246 I. C. C. 353, 361, 364, 383; 262 I. C. C. 7, 41.
There was barge service from the grain section west of Chicago to that city from 1886 to 1907 when it was discontinued. Such barge service was resumed in 1933. See 262 I. C. C. 7, 20.
The ex-barge proportionals fixed by the Commission were uniformly 5.5 cents lower than local rates from Chicago to the east and 3 cents higher than ex-barge and ex-lake proportionals.
Appellees are (1) A. L. Mechling, a barge water carrier between Chicago and points in Illinois, Missouri, and Iowa; (2) Inland Waterways Corporation which transports grain by barges between, among other points, Kansas City and Chicago; (3) the Secretary of Agriculture, who is authorized by statute to make complaints to the Interstate Commerce Commission, and to seek judicial relief with respect to rates and charges for the transportation of farm products.
Two procedural points are raised by the Commission which need not be discussed at length. The first is that the District Court’s preliminary injunction was too broad because it enjoined the Commission from permitting the controversial rates to become effective. This question is now moot, but see Inland Steel Co. v. United States, 306 U. S. 153, 159-160. The second procedural point urged relates to the District Court’s order requiring the Commission to serve notice of appeal on the United States. We see no error in this, and even if there were, it could not be prejudicial in connection with the Commission’s rights on this appeal. Since the United States was necessarily a party in the District Court, 28 U. S. C. 46; Lambert Run Coal Co. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 258 U. S. 377, 382, we think the District Court cannot be held in error for requiring service of the notice of the Commission’s appeal.
54 Stat. 898, 937 ; 49 U. S. C. § 907d. In the original proceedings before the Commission, the last evidence was heard and the record was closed before the 1940 Transportation Act became a law. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Inland Waterways Cory., 319 U. S. 671, 678. The present proceedings are fully governed by the 1940 Act.
Illustrative of the attitude of Congress is this exchange between Senator Lucas and Senator Wheeler, Chairman of the Interstate Commerce Committee :
“Mr. Lucas. . . . The town in which I live is a focal point for the transportation of wheat and corn down the Illinois. The price of wheat and corn at the elevator there is always 2 or 3 cents higher than it is at elevators some 25 or 30 miles farther inland because of the difference between the rates by rail and those by water.
“Under the bill, as I understand it, the Interstate Commerce Commission would have the power, and it would be its duty, to fix rates on the Illinois River with respect to the transportation of that wheat and corn. Would it be possible for .the Interstate Commerce Commission to fix the rate the same as the railroad rate from that point to St. Louis?
“Mr. Wheeler. Not if the Commission does its duty, because the bill specifically provides that it must take into consideration the inherent advantages of the water carrier. Everyone agrees that goods can be shipped more cheaply by water than by rail.” 84 Cong. Rec. 5879 (1939).
Chairman Lea of the House Committee on Interstate Commerce stated in debate that:
“The bill very plainly, about as plainly as language can be written, provides for the protection of the inherent advantages of water transportation as contrasted with other means of transportation. In fixing rates the water carrier is assured the advantages of the cheaper rate at which he can transport property.” 84 Cong. Rec. 9862 (1939).
See also 84 Cong. Rec. 5883, 6125-6128, 6131, 6149 (1939), and Conference Report, 86 Cong. Rec. 10172 (1940).
84 Cong. Rec. 5873-5876, 5883, 6131 (1939).
The Commission stated that “The barge rates yield fair returns to the barge carriers, and, for the purpose of this proceeding, may be accepted as reasonable.” 262 I. C. C. 7, 19.
The Commission expressed concern that “the barge-rail rates are far below the all-rail rates from the same and other Illinois origins. This is an inequitable situation giving rise to requests for reductions in the all-rail rates from the Illinois and central territory origins, and it is difficult to see, with such extreme disparities, how such requests could properly be denied. . . . there is a substantial production of corn in central territory. While the farmers therein did not appear at the hearing to show that they were hurt by this situation, such evidence was adduced by others in the same relative position . . . This is what is meant by the statement . . . that the present ex-barge proportionals from Chicago jeopardize the all-rail rate structure.” 262 I. C. C. at 20. In United States v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 294 U. S. 499, 509, this Court said of an earlier Commission rate decision made on the basis of preserving the over-all rate structure from disruption: “We are warned . . , that a change once permitted has a tendency to spread. The acceptance of the new schedule for Milwaukee will lead, it is said, to requests for proportionate reductions by other lines in Indiana ... in Illinois and even in Kentucky, the outcome being characterized in the argument of counsel, though not in the report, as a rate war between the roads. . . . The point of the decision is not that present rates are sound, but that they must be maintained, even if unsound, for fear of a rate war which might spread beyond control. The danger is illusory. The whole situation is subject to the power of the Commission, which may keep the changes within bounds.”
See § 6, Transportation Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 898, 904, 49 U. S. C. § 4.
The Commission stated that “on the average, as compared with the ex-barge grain, the movement under the ex-rail proportionals . . . requires less terminal service at the gateway . . . less transit service at intermediate points in official territory, and less line-haul service to the southern portion." 262 I. C. C. at 28.
The Commission’s statement was that, “Like the lake-rail traffic, the barge-rail traffic requires transfer of lading and a full origin terminal service at the interchange port. ... it never moves in continuous through transportation.” 262 I. C. C. 7, 21.
A similar precise statement does not appear in the Commission’s decision with reference to terminal services rendered ex-rail grain. It assumed throughout its discussion, however, as shown by its reliance on averages, that a large but unspecified amount of all-rail grain shipments receive the same terminal services as does ex-barge grain.
There is apparently no processing of barge-carried grain in Chicago. The railroads there charge 3.25-4.5 cents per hundred lbs. to switch barge grain at Chicago from riverside elevators to processing plants. 262 I. C. C. 7, 24.
It is noteworthy that in its previous consideration of these same ex-barge grain reshipment rates, the Commission was satisfied that “the physical carriage beyond the reshipping point is substantially the same” in ex-rail, ex-lake, and ex-barge shipments. 248 I. C. C. 307, 311.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The general mining law of 1872, 30 U. S. C. § 22 et seq., provides that citizens may enter and explore the public domain, and search for minerals; if they discover “valuable mineral deposits,” they may obtain title to the land on which such deposits are located. In 1920 Congress altered this program with the enactment of the Mineral Leasing Act. 41 Stat. 437, as amended, 30 U. S. C. § 181 et seg. The Act withdrew oil shale and several other minerals from the general mining law and provided that thereafter these minerals would be subject to disposition only through leases. A savings clause, however, preserved “valid claims existent at date of the passage of this Act and thereafter maintained in compliance with the laws under which initiated, which claims may be perfected under such laws, including discovery.”
The question presented is whether oil shale deposits located prior to the 1920 Act are “valuable mineral deposits” patentable under the savings clause of the Act.
I
The action involves two groups of oil shale claims located by claimants on public lands in Garfield County, Colo., prior to the enactment of the Mineral Leasing Act. The first group of claims, designated Mountain Boys Nos. 6 and 7, was located in 1918. In 1920, a business trust purchased the claims for $25,000, and in 1924 an application for patent was filed with the Department of the Interior. Some 20 years later, after extended investigative and adjudicatory proceedings, the patent was rejected “without prejudice” on the ground that it was not then vigorously pursued. In 1958, Frank W. Winegar acquired the claims and filed a new patent application. In 1964, Winegar conveyed his interests in the claims to respondent Shell Oil Company.
The second group of claims, known as Harold Shoup Nos. 1-4, was located in 1917. In 1923, the claims were acquired by Karl C. Schuyler who in 1933 bequeathed them to his surviving spouse. In 1960, Mrs. Schuyler incorporated respondent D. A. Shale, Inc., and transferred title to the claims to the corporation. Three months later, the corporation filed patent applications.
In 1964, the Department issued administrative complaints alleging that the Mountain Boys claims and the Shoup claims were invalid. The complaints alleged, inter alia, that oil shale was not a “valuable mineral” prior to the enactment of the 1920 Mineral Leasing Act.
The complaints were consolidated and tried to a hearing examiner who in 1970 ruled the claims valid. The hearing examiner observed that under established case law the test for determining a “valuable mineral deposit” was whether the deposit was one justifying present expenditures with a reasonable prospect of developing a profitable mine. See United States v. Coleman, 390 U. S. 599 (1968); Castle v. Womble, 19 L. D. 455 (1894) , He then reviewed the history of oil shale operations in this country and found that every attempted operation had failed to show profitable production. On the basis of this finding and other evidence showing commercial infeasibility, the hearing examiner reasoned that “[i]f this were a case of first impression,” oil shale would fail the “valuable mineral deposit” test. However, he deemed himself bound by the Department’s contrary decision in Freeman v. Summers, 52 L. D. 201 (1927). There, the Secretary had written:
“While at the present time there has been no considerable production of oil from shales, due to the fact that abundant quantities of oil have been produced more cheaply from wells, there is no possible doubt of its value and of the fact that it constitutes an enormously valuable resource for future use by the American people.
“It is not necessary, in order to constitute a valid discovery under the general mining laws sufficient to support an application for patent, that the mineral in its present situation can be immediately disposed of at a profit.” Id., at 206. (Emphasis added.)
The hearing examiner ruled that Freeman v. Summers compelled the conclusion that oil shale is a valuable mineral subject to appropriation under the mining laws, and he upheld the Mountain Boys and Shoup claims as valid and patentable.
The Board of Land Appeals reversed. Adopting the findings of the hearing examiner, the Board concluded that oil shale claims located prior to 1920 failed the test of value because at the time of location there did not appear “as a present fact ... a reasonable prospect of success in developing an operating mine that would yield a reasonable profit.” (Emphasis in original.) The Board recognized that this conclusion was at odds with prior departmental precedent, and particularly with Freeman v. Summers; but it rejected that precedent as inconsistent with the general mining law and therefore unsound. The Board then considered whether its newly enunciated interpretation should be given only prospective effect. It found that respondents’ reliance on prior rulings was minimal and that the Department’s responsibility as trustee of public lands required it to correct a plainly erroneous decision. Accordingly, it ruled that its new interpretation applied to the Mountain Boys and Shoup claims, and that those claims were invalid.
Respondents appealed the Board’s ruling to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The District Court agreed with the Board that by not requiring proof of “present marketability” the decision in Freeman v. Summers had liberalized the traditional valuable mineral test. But it found that Congress in 1931 and again in 1956 had considered the patentability of oil shale and had implicitly “ratified” that liberalized rule. Alternatively, the District Court concluded that the Department was estopped now from departing from the Freeman standard which investors had “relied upon ... for the past half-century.” Shell Oil Co. v. Kleppe, 426 F. Supp. 894, 907 (1977). On these grounds, it reversed the Board’s ruling and held that the claims at issue were valid.
The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed. 591 F. 2d 597 (1979). It agreed with the District Court that the “different treatment afforded all oil shale claims as to the 'valuable mineral deposit’ element of a location became a part of the general mining laws by reason of its adoption and approval by both Houses of Congress” in the years after 1920. Id., at 604. And it held that the Department now must adhere to the Freeman rule. We granted certiorari because of the importance of the question to the management of the public lands. 444 U. S. 822 (1979). We affirm.
II
The legislative history of the 1920 Mineral Leasing Act shows that Congress did not consider “present marketability” a prerequisite to the patentability of oil shale. In the extensive hearings and debates that preceded the passage of the 1920 Act, there is no intimation that Congress contemplated such a requirement; indeed, the contrary appears. During the 1919 floor debates in the House of Representatives, an amendment was proposed which would have substituted the phrase “deposits in paying quantities” for “valuable mineral.” That amendment, however, was promptly withdrawn after Mr. Sin-ott, the House floor manager, voiced his objection to the change:
“Mr. SINOTT. That language was put in with a great deal of consideration and we would not like to change from Valuable’ to ‘paying-’ There is quite a distinction. We are in line with the decisions of the courts as to what is a discovery, and I think it would be a very dangerous matter to experiment with this language at this time.” 58 Cong. Rec. 7537 (1919) (emphasis added).
An examination of the relevant decisions at the time underscores the point. Those decisions are clear in rejecting a requirement that a miner must “demonstrate] that the vein . . . would pay all the expenses of removing, extracting, crushing, and reducing the ore, and leave a profit to the owner,” Book v. Justice Mining Co., 58 F. 106, 124 (CC Nev. 1893), and in holding that “it is enough if the vein or deposit 'has a present or prospective commercial value.’ ” Madison v. Octave Oil Co., 154 Cal. 768, 772, 99 P. 176, 178 (1908) (emphasis added). Accord, Cascaden v. Bartolis, 146 F. 739 (CA9 1906); United States v. Ohio Oil Co., 240 F. 996, 998 (Wyo. 1916); Montana Cent. R. Co. v. Migeon, 68 F. 811, 814 (CC Mont. 1895); East Tintic Consolidated Mining Co., 43 L. D. 79, 81 (1914); 2 C. Lindley, American Law Relating to Mines and Mineral Lands § 336, pp. 768-769 (3d ed. 1914). See generally Reeves, The Origin and Development of the Rules of Discovery, 8 Land & Water L. Rev. 1 (1973).
To be sure, prior to the passage of the 1920 Act, there existed considerable uncertainty as to whether oil shale was patentable. That uncertainty, however, related to whether oil shale was a “mineral” under the mining law, and not to its “value.” Similar doubts had arisen in the late 19th century in regard to petroleum. Indeed, in 1896 the Secretary of the Interior had held that petroleum claims were not subject to location under the mining laws, concluding that only lands “containing the more precious metals . . . gold, silver, cinnabar etc.” were open to entry. Union Oil Co., 23 L. D. 222, 227. The Secretary’s decision was short-lived. In 1897, Congress enacted the Oil Placer Act authorizing entry under the mining laws to public lands “containing petroleum or other mineral oils.” Ch. 216, 29 Stat. 526. This legislation put to rest any doubt about oil as a mineral. But because oil shale, strictly speaking, contained kerogen and not oil, see n. 3, supra, its status remained problematic. See Reidy, Do Unpatented Oil Shale Claims Exist?, 43 Denver L. J. 9, 12 (1966).
That this was the nature of the uncertainty surrounding the patentability of oil shale claims is evident from remarks made throughout the hearings and debates on the 1920 Act. In the 1918 hearings, Congressman Barnett, for example, explained:
“Mr. BARNETT. ... If the department should contend that shale lands come within the meaning of the term 'oil lands’ they must perforce, by the same argument, admit that they are placer lands within the meaning of the act of 1897.
“The Chairman. And patentable?
“Mr. BARNETT. And patentable under that act.”
Hearings, at 918.
The enactment of the 1920 Mineral Leasing Act put an end to these doubts. By withdrawing “oil shale ... in lands valuable for such minerals” from disposition under the general mining law, the Congress recognized — at least implicitly— that oil shale had been a locatable mineral. In effect, the 1920 Act did for oil shale what the 1897 Oil Placer Act had done for oil. And, as Congressman Barnett’s ready answer demonstrates, once it was settled that oil shale was a mineral subject to location, and once a savings clause was in place preserving pre-existing claims, it was fully expected that such claims would be patentable. The fact that oil shale then had no commercial value simply was not perceived as an obstacle to that end.
Ill
Our conclusion that Congress in enacting the 1920 Mineral Leasing Act contemplated that pre-existing oil shale claims could satisfy the discovery requirement of the mining law is confirmed by actions taken in subsequent years by the Interior Department and the Congress.
A
On May 10, 1920, less than three months after the Mineral Leasing Act became law, the Interior Department issued “Instructions” to its General Land Office authorizing that Office to begin adjudicating applications for patents for pre-1920 oil shale claims. The Instructions advised as follows:
“Oil shale having been thus recognized by the Department and by Congress as a mineral deposit and a source of petroleum . . . lands valuable on account thereof must be held to have been subject to valid location and appropriation under the placer mining laws, to the same extent and subject to the same provisions and conditions as if valuable on account of oil or gas.” 47 L. D. 548, 551 (1920) (emphasis added).
The first such patent was issued immediately thereafter. Five years later, the Department ruled that patentability was dependent upon the “character, extent, and mode of occurrence of the oil-shale deposits.” Dennis v. Utah, 51 L. D. 229, 232 (1925). Present profitability was not mentioned as a relevant, let alone a critical, consideration.
In 1927, the Department decided Freeman v. Summers, 52 L. D. 201. The case arose out of a dispute between an oil shale claimant and an applicant for a homestead patent, and involved two distinct issues: (1) whether a finding of lean surface deposits warranted the geological inference that the claim contained rich “valuable” deposits below; and (2) whether present profitability was a prerequisite to patentability. Both issues were decided in favor of the oil shale claimant: the geological inference was deemed sound and the fact that there was “no possible doubt . . . that [oil shale] constitutes an enormously valuable resource for future use by the American people” was ruled sufficient proof of “value.” Id., at 206.
For the next 33 years, Freeman was applied without deviation. It was said that its application ensured that “valid rights [would] be protected and permitted to be perfected.” Secretary of Interior Ann. Rep. 30 (1927). In all, 523 patents for 2,326 claims covering 349,088 acres were issued under the Freeman rule. This administrative practice, begun immediately upon the passage of the 1920 Act, “has peculiar weight [because] it involves a contemporaneous construction of [the] statute by the men charged with the responsibility of setting its machinery in motion," Norwegian Nitrogen Products Co. v. United States, 288 U. S. 294, 315 (1933). Accord, e. g., United States v. National Assn. of Securities Dealers, 422 U. S. 694, 719 (1975); Udall v. Tallman, 380 U. S. 1, 16 (1965). It provides strong support for the conclusion that Congress did not intend to impose a present marketability requirement on oil shale claims.
B
In 1930 and 1931, congressional committees revisited the 1920 Mineral Leasing Act and re-examined the patentability of oil shale claims. Congressional interest in the subject was sparked in large measure by a series of newspaper articles charging that oil shale lands had been “improvidently, erroneously, and unlawfully, if not corruptly, transferred to individuals and private corporations.” 74 Cong. Rec. 1079 (1930) (S. Res. 379). The articles were based upon accusations leveled at the Interior Department by Ralph S. Kelly, then the General Land Office Division Inspector in Denver. Kelly’s criticism centered on the Freeman v. Summers decision. Fearing another “Teapot Dome” scandal, the Senate authorized the Committee on Public Lands to “inquire into ... the alienation of oil shale lands.”
The Senate Committee held seven days of hearings focusing almost exclusively on “the so-called Freeman-Summers case.” Hearings on S. Res. 379 before the Senate Committee on Public Lands and Surveys, 71st Cong., 3d Sess., 2 (1931). At the outset of the hearings, the Committee was advised by E. C. Finney, Solicitor, Department of the Interior, that 124 oil shale patents had been issued covering 175,000 acres of land and that 63 more patent applications were pending. Finney’s statement prompted this interchange:
“Senator PITTMAN: Well, were the shales on those patented lands of commercial value?
“Mr. FINNEY: If you mean by that whether they could have been mined and disposed of at a profit at the time of the patent, or now, the answer is no.
“Senator PITTMAN: So the Government has disposed of 175,000 acres in patents on lands which in your opinion there was no valid claim to in the locator?
“Mr. FINNEY: No; that was not my opinion. I have never held in the world, that I know of, that you had to have an actual commercial discovery of any commodity that you could take out and market at a profit. On the contrary, the department has held that that is not the case. . . .” Id., at 25 (emphasis added).
Later in the hearings Senator Walsh expressed his understanding of the impact of the Freeman decision:
“Senator WALSH: [It means] . . . that the prospector having found at the surface the layer containing any quantity of mineral, that is of oil-bearing shale or kero-gen, that that would be a discovery in view of the beds down below of richer character.
“Mr. FINNEY: In this formation, yes sir; that is correct.” Id., at 138.
See also id., at 22-23, 26, 163. The Senate Committee did not produce a report. But one month after the hearings were completed, Senator Nye, the Chairman of the Committee, wrote the Secretary of the Interior that he had “ ‘conferred with Senator Walsh and beg[ged] to advise that there is no reason why your Department should not proceed to final disposition of the pending application for patents to oil shale lands in conformity with the law.’ ” App. 103. The patenting of oil shale lands under the standards enunciated in Freeman was at once resumed.
At virtually the same time, the House of Representatives commenced its own investigation into problems relating to oil shale patents. The House Committee, however, focused primarily on the question of assessment work — whether an oil shale claimant was required to perform $100 work per year or forfeit his claim — and not on discovery. But the impact of the Freeman rule was not lost on the Committee:
“Mr. SWING. In furtherance of the policy of conservation, Mr. Secretary, in view of the fact that there has not been discovered, as I understand it, any practical economical method of extracting oil from the shale in competition with oil wells . . . would it not be proper public policy to withdraw all shale lands from private acquisition, since we are compelled to recognize, perforce, economic and fiscal conditions, that no one is going to make any beneficial use of the oil shale in the immediate future, but is simply putting it in cold storage as a speculative proposition?
“Secretary WILBUR: As a matter of conservation, what you say is true, but what we have to meet here is the fact that in the leasing act there was a clause to the effect that valid existing claims were not included, and so we are dealing with claims that are thought to be valid, and the question—
“Mr. SWING (interposing). I realize that, and I understand the feeling of Congress, and I think generally the country, that in drawing the law we do not want to cut the ground from under the person who has initiated a right.” Consolidated Hearings on Applications for Patent on Oil Shale Lands before the House Committee on the Public Lands, 71st Cong., 3d Sess., 100 (1931).
Congressman Swing’s statement of the “feeling of Congress” comports with our reading of the 1920 statute and of congressional intent. To hold now that Freeman was wrongly-decided would be wholly inconsistent with that intent. Moreover, it would require us to conclude that the Congress in 1930-1931 closed its eyes to a major perversion of the mining laws. We reject any such conclusion.
C
In 1956 Congress again turned its attention to the patent-ability of oil shale. That year it amended the mining laws by eliminating the requirement that locators must obtain and convey to the United States existing homestead surface-land patents in order to qualify for a mining patent on minerals withdrawn under the 1920 Mineral Leasing Act. See Pub. L. 743, 70 Stat. 592. Where a surface owner refused to cooperate with the mining claimant and sell his estate, this requirement prevented the mining claimant from patenting his claim. See James W. Bell, 52 L. D. 197 (1927). In hearings on the amendment, it was emphasized that oil shale claimants would be principal beneficiaries of the amendment:
“Mr. ASPINALL. This [bill] does not have to do with any other minerals except the leaseable minerals to which no one can get a patent since 1920. ... As far as I know, there are only just a few cases that are involved, and most of those cases are in the oil shale lands of eastern Utah and western Colorado. That is all this bill refers to.” Hearings on H. R. 6501 before the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs 3-4 (1956).
See also Hearings on H. R. 6501 before the Subcommittee on Mines and Mining of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs 4, 13-14, 16 (1956). The Reports of both Houses also evince a clear understanding that oil shale claimants stood to gain by the amendment:
“Under the Department of the Interior decision in the case of James W. Bell . . . the owner of a valid mining claim located before February 25, 1920, on lands covered by the 1914 act, in order to obtain a patent to the minerals, is required to acquire the outstanding interest of the surface owner and thereafter to execute a deed of recon-veyance to the United States. . . . From 1946 to 1955, inclusive, 71 mining claims, including 67 oil shale claims, were issued under this procedure. The committee is informed that in a few cases mining claimants have been unable to obtain the cooperation of the owners of the surface estate and have been prevented thereby from obtaining patent to the mineral estate.” S. Rep. No. 2524, 84th Cong, 2d Sess., 2 (1956); H. R. Rep. No. 2198, 84th Cong., 2d Sess., 2 (1956) (emphasis added).
The bill was enacted into law without floor debate. Were we to hold today that oil shale is a nonvaluable mineral we would virtually nullify this 1956 action of Congress.
IV
The position of the Government in this case is not without a certain irony. Its challenge to respondents’ pre-1920 oil shale claims as a “nonvaluable” comes at a time when the value of such claims has increased sharply as the Nation searches for alternative energy sources to meet its pressing needs. If the Government were to succeed in invalidating old claims and in leasing the lands at public auction, the Treasury, no doubt, would be substantially enriched. However, the history of the 1920 Mineral Leasing Act and developments subsequent to that Act persuade us that the Government cannot achieve that end by imposing a present marketability requirement on oil shale claims. We conclude that the original position of the Department of the Interior, enunciated in the 1920 Instructions and in Freeman v. Summers, is the correct view of the Mineral Leasing Act as it applies to the patentability of those claims.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Discovery of a “valuable mineral” is not the Only prerequisite of pat-entability. The mining law also provides that until a patent is issued a claimant must perform $100 worth of labor or make $100 of improvements on his claim during each year and that a patent may issue only on a showing that the claimant has expended a total of $500 on the claim. 30 U. S. C. §§ 28, 29. See Hickel v. Oil Shale Corp., 400 U. S. 48 (1970). In addition, a claim “must be distinctly marked on the ground so- that its boundaries can be readily traced.” 30 U. S. C. § 28; Kendall v. San Juan Silver Mining Co., 144 U. S. 658 (1892). If the requirements of the mining law are satisfied, the land may be patented for $2.50 per acre. 30 U. S. C. § 37. There is no deadline within which a locator must file for patent, though to satisfy the discovery requirement the claimant must show the existence of “valuable mineral deposits” both at the time of location and at the time of determination. Barrows v. Hickel, 447 F. 2d 80, 82 (CA9 1971).
The savings clause is contained in § 37 of the Act, 41 Stat. 451, as amended, which, as set forth in 30 U. S. C. § 193, provides in full:
“The deposits of coal, phosphate, sodium, potassium, oil, oil shale, and gas, herein referred to, in lands valuable for such minerals, including lands and deposits in Lander, Wyoming, coal entries numbered 18 to 49, inclusive, shall be subject to disposition only in the form and manner provided in this chapter, except as to valid claims existent on February 25, 1920, and thereafter maintained in compliance with the laws under which initiated, which claims may be perfected under such laws, including discovery.”
Oil shale is a sedimentary rock containing an organic material called kerogen which, upon destructive distillation, produces a substantial amount of oil.
In Chrisman v. Miller, 197 U. S. 313 (1905), this Court approved the Department of the Interior’s “prudent-man test” under which discovery of a “valuable mineral deposit” requires proof of a deposit of such character that “a person of ordinary prudence would be justified in the further expenditure of his labor and means, with a reasonable prospect of success, in developing a valuable mine.” Castle v. Womble, 19 L. D., at 457. Accord, Best v. Humboldt Placer Mining Co., 371 U. S. 334, 335-336 (1963); Cameron v. United States, 252 U. S. 450, 459 (1920). In United States v. Coleman, the Court approved the Department’s marketability test — whether a mineral can be “extracted, removed and marketed at a profit” — deeming it a logical complement of the prudent-man standard.
The Board observed that “[although Shell . . . expended some $18,780 in perfecting title to and preparing patent application for the Mountain Boy claims before 1964, it did not purchase [the claims] from Frank Winegar for $30,000 [until] after initiation of the contest proceedings.” And it found no evidence that D. A. Shale, Inc., or its predecessors had invested “more than a minimal amount” in the purchase of the Shoup claims in reliance on the Freeman decision.
Congress was aware that there was then no commercially feasible method for extracting oil from oil shale. The 1918 Report of the House Committee on the Public Lands, for example, had emphasized that
“no commercial quantity or any appreciable amount of shale oil has ever been produced in this country, nor any standardized process of production has yet been evolved or recommended or agreed upon in this country by the Bureau of Mines or anyone else, and it has not yet been demonstrated that the oil-shale industry can be made commercially profitable. . . .” H. R. Rep. No. 563, 65th Cong., 2d Sess., 18 (1918).
See also 58 Cong. Rec. 4271, 4279 (1919) (remarks of Sen. Smoot); Hearings on H. R. 3232 and S. 2812 before the House Committee on the Public Lands, 65th Cong., 2d Sess., 811, 890, 1257 (1918) (hereafter Hearings).
Mr. John Fry, one of the Committee witnesses who represented the oil shale interests before Congress, was candid on that point:
“Mr. TAYLOR. There is a large amount of this shale land that has been located and is now held under the placer law. But none of it has yet gone to patent.
“The Chairman. Has one acre of this land withdrawn in Colorado been patented?
“Mr. FRY. No.
“The Chairman. So you do not know what the holding of the department will be?
“Mr. FRY. We do not.” Hearings, at 912.
See also id., at 626, 873, 913, 918, 1240, 1256-1267.
This Court has observed that “the views of a subsequent Congress form a hazardous basis for inferring the intent of an earlier one.” United States v. Price, 361 U. S. 304, 313 (1960). This sound admonition has guided several of our recent decisions. See, e. g, TVA v. Hill, 437 U. S. 153, 189-193 (1978); SEC v. Sloan, 436 U. S. 103, 119-122 (1978). Yet we cannot fail to note Mr. Chief Justice Marshall’s dictum that “[w]here the mind labours to discover the design of the legislature, it seizes every thing from which aid can be derived.” United States v. Fisher, 2 Cranch 358, 386 (1805). In consequence, while arguments predicated upon subsequent congressional actions must be weighed with extreme care, they should not be rejected out of hand as a source that a court may consider in the search for legislative intent. See, e. g., Seatrain Shipbuilding Corp. v. Shell Oil Co., 444 U. S. 572, 596 (1980); Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U. S. 367, 380-381 (1969); NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co., 416 U. S. 267, 274-275 (1974).
See, e. g., John M. Debevoise, 67 I. D. 177, 180 (1960); United States v. Strauss, 59 I. D. 129, 140-142 (1945); Location of Oil Shale Placer Claims, 52 L. D. 631 (1929); Assessment Work on Oil-Shale Claims, 52 L. D. 334 (1928); Standard Shales Products Co., 52 L. D. 522 (1928); James W. Bell, 52 L. D. 197 (1927).
At the conclusion of its hearings, the Committee recommended legislation placing a deadline on the filing of patent applications for oil shale claims and permitting an oil shale claimant to pay $100 a year to the Land Office in lieu of $100 in annual assessment work. Other aspects of the oil shale patentability — including the question of discovery — were not addressed in the proposed legislation. H. R. Rep. No. 2537, 71st Cong., 3d Sess. (1931). The proposal was not enacted by the Congress.
This history indicates only that a present marketability standard does not apply to oil shale. It does not affect our conclusion in United States v. Coleman that for other minerals the Interior Department’s profitability test is a permissible interpretation of the “valuable mineral” requirement. See n. 4, supra.
The dissent overlooks the abundant evidence that Congress since 1920 has consistently viewed oil shale as a “valuable mineral” under the general mining law. The dissent dismisses the 1931 hearings and the 1956 Act as irrelevancies: as for the 1931 hearings, the dissent states that “not a single remark by a Senator or Representative” approved the Freeman standard; as for the 1956 Act, we are informed that Congress “dealt with [a] totally unrelated problem.” Post, at 676. Neither of these observations is correct. The 1931 Senate hearings were called specifically to review the Freeman ease for fear that another “Teapot Dome” scandal was brewing. Rarely has an administrative law decision received such exhaustive congressional scrutiny. And following that scrutiny, no action was taken to disturb the settled administrative practice; rather Senator Nye advised the Interior Department to continue patenting oil shale claims. Similarly, to characterize the 1956 Act as “totally unrelated” is to blink reality. The patentability of oil shale land was an essential predicate to that legislation; if oil shale land was nonpatentable then Congress performed a useless act.
The dissent also overlooks that beginning in 1920 and continuing for four decades, the Interior Department treated oil shale as a “valuable mineral.” In paying deference to the doctrine that a “contemporaneous [administrative] construction ... is entitled to substantial weight,” post, at 676, the dissent ignores this contemporaneous administrative practice. The best evidence of the 1920 standard of patentability is the 1920 In-tenor Department practice on the matter. The suggestion of the dissent that "future events [such] as market changes” were not meaningful data under the Castle v. Womble test, post, at 678, is inaccurate. As a leading treatise has observed, “[t]he future value concept of Freeman v. Summers is nothing more than the 'reasonable prospect of success’ of Castle v. Womble, and the reference to ‘present facts’ in Castle v. Womble . . . relates to the existence of a vein or lode and not to its value.” 1 Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation, The American Law of Mining § 4.76, p. 697, n. 2 (1979).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Manhattan Casualty Co., now represented by petitioner, New York’s Superintendent of Insurance, was, it is alleged, defrauded in the sale of certain securities in violation of § 17 (a) of the Securities Act of 1933, 48 Stat. 84, 15 U. S. C. § 77q (a), and of § 10 (b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 891, 15 U. S. C. § 78j (b). The District Court dismissed the complaint, 300 F. Supp. 1083, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, by a divided bench. 430 F. 2d 355. The case is here on a petition for a writ of certiorari which we granted, 401 U. S. 973.
It seems that Bankers Life & Casualty Co., one of the respondents, agreed to sell all of Manhattan’s stock to one Begole for $5,000,000. It is alleged that Begole conspired with one Bourne and others to pay for this stock, not out of their own funds, but with Manhattan’s assets. They were alleged to have arranged, through Garvin, Bantel & Co. — a note brokerage firm — to obtain a $5,000,000 check from respondent Irving Trust Co., although they had no funds on deposit there at the time. On the same day they purchased all the stock of Manhattan from Bankers Life for $5,000,000 and as stockholders and directors, installed one Sweeny as president of Manhattan.
Manhattan then sold its United States Treasury bonds for $4,854,552.67. That amount, plus enough cash to bring the total to $5,000,000, was credited to an account of Manhattan at Irving Trust and the $5,000,000 Irving Trust check was charged against it. As a result, Begole owned all the stock of Manhattan, having used $5,000,000 of Manhattan's assets to purchase it.
To complete the fraudulent scheme, Irving Trust issued a second $5,000,000 check to Manhattan which Sweeny, Manhattan's new president, tendered to Belgian-American Bank & Trust Co. which issued a $5,000,000 certificate of deposit in the name of Manhattan. Sweeny endorsed the certificate of deposit over to New England Note Corp., a company alleged to be controlled by Bourne. Bourne endorsed the certificate over to Belgian-American Banking Corp. as collateral for a $5,000,000 loan from Belgian-American Banking to New England. Its proceeds were paid to Irving Trust to cover the latter’s second $5,000,000 check.
Though Manhattan's assets had been depleted, its books reflected only the sale of its Government bonds and the purchase of the certificate of deposit and did not show that its assets had been used by Begole to pay for his purchase of Manhattan’s shares or that the certificate of deposit had been assigned to New England and then pledged to Belgian-American Banking.
Manhattan was the seller of Treasury bonds and, it seems to us, clearly protected by § 10 (b), 15 U. S. C. § 78j (b), of the Securities Exchange Act, which makes it unlawful to use “in connection with the purchase or sale” of any security “any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance” in contravention of the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
There certainly was an “act” or “practice” within the meaning of Rule 10b-5 which operated as “a fraud or deceit” on Manhattan, the seller of the Government bonds. To be sure, the full market price was paid for those bonds; but the seller was duped into believing that it, the seller, would receive the proceeds. We cannot agree with the Court of Appeals that “no investor [was] injured” and that the “purity of the security transaction and the purity of the trading process were unsullied.” 430 F. 2d, at 361.
Section 10 (b) outlaws the use “in connection with the purchase or sale” of any security of “any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance.” The Act protects corporations as well as individuals who are sellers of a security. Manhattan was injured as an investor through a deceptive device which deprived it of any compensation for the sale of its valuable block of securities.
The fact that the fraud was perpetrated by an officer of Manhattan and his outside collaborators is irrelevant to our problem. For § 10 (b) bans the use of any deceptive device in the “sale” of any security by “any person.” And the fact that the transaction is not conducted through a securities exchange or an organized over-the-counter market is irrelevant to the coverage of § 10 (b). Hooper v. Mountain States Securities Corp., 282 F. 2d 195, 201. Likewise irrelevant is the fact that the proceeds of the sale that were due the seller' were misappropriated. As the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit said in the Hooper case, “Considering the purpose of this legislation, it would be unrealistic to say that a corporation having the capacity to acquire $700,000 worth of assets for its 700,000 shares of stock has suffered no loss if what it gave up was $700,000 but what it got was zero.” 282 F. 2d, at 203.
The Congress made clear that “disregard of trust relationships by those whom the law should regard as fiduciaries, are all a single seamless web” along with manipulation, investor’s ignorance, and the like. H. R. Rep. No. 1383, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 6. Since practices “constantly vary and where practices legitimate for some purposes may be turned to illegitimate and fraudulent means, broad discretionary powers” in the regulatory agency “have been found practically essential.” Id., at 7. Hence we do not read § 10 (b) as narrowly as the Court of Appeals; it is not “limited to preserving the integrity of the securities markets” (430 F. 2d, at 361), though that purpose is included. Section 10 (b) must be read flexibly, not technically and restrictively. Since there was a “sale” of a security and since fraud was used “in connection with” it, there is redress under § 10 (b), whatever might be available as a remedy under state law.
We agree that Congress by § 10 (b) did not seek to regulate transactions which constitute no more than internal corporate mismanagement. But we read § 10 (b) to mean that Congress meant to bar deceptive devices and contrivances in the purchase or sale of securities whether conducted in the organized markets or face to face. And the fact that creditors of the defrauded corporate buyer or seller of securities may be the ultimate victims does not warrant disregard of the corporate entity. The controlling stockholder owes the corporation a fiduciary obligation — one “designed for the protection of the entire community of interests in the corporation — creditors as well as stockholders.” Pepper v. Litton, 308 U. S. 295, 307.
The crux of the present case is that Manhattan suffered an injury as a result of deceptive practices touching its sale of securities as an investor. As stated in Shell v. Hensley, 430 F. 2d 819, 827:
“When a person who is dealing with a corporation in a securities transaction denies the corporation’s directors access to material information known to him, the corporation is disabled from availing itself of an informed judgment on the part of its board regarding the merits of the transaction. In this situation the private right of action recognized under Rule 10b-5 is available as a remedy for the corporate disability.”
The case was before the lower courts on a motion to dismiss.
Bankers Life urges that the complaint did not allege, and discovery failed to disclose, any connection between it and the fraud and that, therefore, the dismissal of the complaint as to it was correct and should be affirmed. We make no ruling on this point.
The case must be remanded for trial. We intimate no opinion on the merits, as we have dealt only with allegations and with the question of law whether a cause of action as respects the sale by Manhattan of its Treasury bonds has been charged under § 10 (b). We think it has been so charged and accordingly we reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
All defenses except our ruling on § 10 (b) will be open on remand.
Reversed.
Manhattan’s Board of Directors was allegedly deceived into authorizing this sale by the misrepresentation that the proceeds would be exchanged for a certificate of deposit of equal value.
Belgian-American Banking at the same time made a loan to New England Note in the amount of $250,000 which was distributed in part as follows: Belgian-American Banking $100,000, Bourne $50,000, Begole $50,000, and Garvin, Bantel $25,000.
Section 10 (b) provides:
“It shall be unlawful for any person . . . [t]o use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security registered on a national securities exchange or any security not so registered, any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.”
Rule 10b-5, 17 CFR §240.10b-5, provides:
“It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails or of any facility of any national securities exchange,
“(a) To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud,
“(b) To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or
“(c) To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.”
N. 4, supra.
Section 3 (a) (10) of the 1934 Act defines “security” very broadly (see Tcherepnin v. Knight, 389 U. S. 332) and clearly embraces Treasury bonds.
See, e. g., Allico Nat. Corp. v. Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, 397 F. 2d 727 (CA7 1968), which held sufficient under § 10 (b) and Rule 10b-5 a complaint which charged that defendant union, upon discovering that a third party would pay a higher price, breached a prior agreement to sell 100% of the stock in a wholly owned life insurance company to plaintiffs. The court placed primary reliance on the fact that in the course of the transaction, the union misappropriated some 25,000 shares of the life insurance company’s stock which had previously been sold to plaintiffs for cash, but which were being held in escrow pending consummation of the agreement.
“Even if a breach of contract in order to make a more favorable contract would not in itself be sufficient [to confer jurisdiction under § 10(b)], we have more here. The motivation not only is said to induce a breach of contract . . . but also to induce the conversion of plaintiffs’ pledged 25,000 shares.” Id.., at 729-730. See also Cooper v. North Jersey Trust Co., 226 F. Supp. 972 (SDNY 1964), in which a conspiracy to loan plaintiff money to buy securities, followed by the misappropriation of the purchased securities when they were pledged to secure the loan, was held to violate § 10 (b) and Rule 10b-5.
Indeed, misappropriation is a “garden variety” type of fraud compared to the scheme which gave rise to A. T. Brod & Co. v. Perlow, 375 F. 2d 393 (CA2 1967). That ease involved an action by a broker against its own customers for the recovery of losses suffered when defendant customers refused to pay for securities previously ordered which had decreased in value by the settlement date. The complaint charged that this refusal to honor the purchase order was part of the customers’ deceptive plan only to pay for securities purchased for their account when those securities had appreciated in value by the date payment was due.
Rejecting the customers’ pleas that “no fraud is alleged as to the investment value of the securities nor any fraud ‘usually associated with the sale or purchase of securities,’ ” id., at 396, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit — composed of a different panel from the one sitting in the instant case — reversed the District Court’s dismissal of the complaint.
“[We do not] think it sound to dismiss a complaint merely because the alleged scheme does not involve the type of fraud that is ‘usually associated with the sale or purchase of securities.’ We believe that § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 prohibit all fraudulent schemes in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, whether the artifices employed involve a garden type variety of fraud, or present a unique form of deception. Novel or atypical methods should not provide immunity from the securities laws.” Id., at 397.
The history of the Act shows that Congress was especially concerned with the impact of frauds on creditors of corporations. See H. R. Rep. No. 1383, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 3-4.
It is now established that a private right of action is implied under §10(b). See 6 L. Loss, Securities Regulation 3869-3873 (1969); 3 L. Loss, Securities Regulation 1763 et seq. (2d ed. 1961). Cf. Tcherepnin v. Knight, 389 U. S. 332; J. I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U. S. 426.
Petitioner’s complaint bases his single claim for recovery alternatively on three different transactions alleged to confer jurisdiction under § 10 (b): Manhattan’s sale of the Treasury bonds; the sale of Manhattan stock by Bankers Life to Bourne and Begole; and the transactions involving the certificates of deposit. We only hold that the alleged fraud is cognizable under § 10 (b) and Rule 10b-5 in the bond sale and we express no opinion as to Manhattan’s standing under § 10 (b) and Rule 10b-5 on other phases of the complaint. See Kellogg, The Inability to Obtain Analytical Precision Where Standing to Sue Under Rule 10b-5 is Involved, 20 Buffalo L. Rev. 93 (1970); Lowenfels, The Demise of the Birnbaum Doctrine: A New Era For Rule 10b-5, 54 Va. L. Rev. 268 (1968).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Federal officers, armed with a search warrant, entered one of the buildings in an industrial complex in Jewett City, Connecticut. There they found respondents standing a few feet from an operating still. Respondents were indicted on three counts: Count 1 charged possession, custody and control of an illegal still in violation of 26 U. S. C. § 5601 (a)(1); Count 2, the illegal production of distilled spirits in violation of 26 U. S. C. § 5601 (a) (8); and Count 3, a conspiracy to produce distilled spirits. Both respondents were convicted on all three counts, both were fined on Count 1 and both sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment on each of the three counts.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions on Count 3. 330 F. 2d 566. It reversed the convictions on Counts 1 and 2 because the trial court in instructing the jury read verbatim provisions of § 5601 (b)(1) and § 5601 (b)(4), which provide in part that the presence of the defendant at the site of an illegal still “shall be deemed sufficient evidence to authorize conviction, unless the defendant explains such presence to the satisfaction of the jury . . . .” This instruction and the statutory inference which it embodied were held by the Court of Appeals to violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. We granted certiorari to consider this constitutional issue. 380 U. S. 941.
We agree as to the invalidity of § 5601 (b)(1) and the reversal of the convictions on Count 1. It is unnecessary, however, to consider the validity of § 5601 (b)(4) and the convictions on Count 2 since the sentences on that count were concurrent with the sentences, not here challenged, which were imposed on Count 3. United States v. Gainey, 380 U. S. 63, 65; Sinclair v. United States, 279 U. S. 263, 299.
If we were reviewing only the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict on Count 1, that conviction would be sustained. There was, as the Court of Appeals recognized, ample evidence in addition to presence at the still to support the charge of possession of an illegal still. But here, in addition to a standard instruction on reasonable doubt, the jury was told that the defendants’ presence at the still “shall be deemed sufficient evidence to authorize conviction.” This latter instruction may have been given considerable weight by the jury; the jury may have disbelieved or disregarded the other evidence of possession and convicted these defendants on the evidence of presence alone. We thus agree with the Court of Appeals that the validity of the statutory inference in the disputed instruction must be faced and decided.
The test to be applied to the kind of statutory inference involved in this criminal case is not in dispute. In Tot v. United States, 319 U. S. 463, the Court, relying on a line of cases dating from 1910, reaffirmed the limits which the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments place “upon the power of Congress or that of a state legislature to make the proof of one fact or group of facts evidence of the existence of the ultimate fact on which guilt is predicated.” Id., at 467. Such a legislative determination would not be sustained if there was “no rational connection between the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed, if the inference of the one from proof of the other is arbitrary because of lack of connection between the two in common experience. . . . [WJhere the inference is so strained as not to have a reasonable relation to the circumstances of life as we know them, it is not competent for the legislature to create it as a rule governing the procedure of courts.” Id., at 467-468. Judged by this standard, the statutory presumption in issue there was found constitutionally infirm.
Just last Term, in United States v. Gainey, 380 U. S. 63, the Court passed upon the validity of a companion section to §5601 (b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code. The constitutionality of the legislation was held to depend upon the “rationality of the connection ‘between the facts proved and the ultimate fact presumed.’ ” 380
U. S., at 66. Tested by this rule, the Court sustained the provision of 26 U. S. C. § 5601 (b)(2) declaring presence at a still to be sufficient evidence to authorize conviction under 26 U. S. C. § 5601 (a) (4) for carrying on the business of the distillery without giving the required bond. Noting that almost anyone at the site of a secret still could reasonably be said to be carrying on the business or aiding and abetting it and that Congress had accorded the evidence of presence only its “natural probative force,” the Court sustained the presumption.
This case is markedly different from Gainey, supra. Congress has chosen in the relevant provisions of the Internal Revenue Code to focus upon various phases and aspects of the distilling business and to make each of them a separate crime. Count 1 of this indictment charges “possession, custody and . . . control” of an illegal still as a separate, distinct offense. Section 5601 (a)(1) obviously has a much narrower coverage than has § 5601 (a)(4) with its sweeping prohibition of carrying on a distilling business.
In Bozza v. United States, 330 U. S. 160, the Court squarely held, and the United States conceded, that presence alone was insufficient evidence to convict of the specific offense proscribed by § 5601 (a)(1), absent some evidence that the defendant engaged in conduct directly related to the crime of possession, custody or control. That offense was confined to those who had “custody or possession” of the still or acted in some “other capacity calculated to facilitate the custody or possession, such as, for illustration, service as a caretaker, watchman, lookout or in some other capacity.” Id., at 164. This requirement was not satisfied in the Bozza case either by the evidence showing participation in the distilling operations or by the fact that the defendant helped to carry the finished product to delivery vehicles. These facts, and certainly mere presence at the still, were insufficient proof that “petitioner ever exercised, or aided the exercise of, any control over the distillery.” Ibid.
Presence at an operating still is sufficient evidence to prove the charge of “carrying on” because anyone present at the site is very probably connected with the illegal enterprise. Whatever his. job may be, he is at the very least aiding and abetting the substantive crime of carrying on the illegal distilling business. Section 5601 (a)(1), however, proscribes possession, custody or control. This is only one of the various aspects of the total undertaking, many of which have nothing at all to do with possession, as Bozza made quite clear and as the United States conceded in that case. Presence tells us only that the defendant was there and very likely played a part in the illicit scheme. But presence tells us nothing about what the defendant’s specific function was and carries no legitimate, rational or reasonable inference that he was engaged in one of the specialized functions connected with possession, rather than in one of the supply, delivery or operational activities having nothing to do with possession. Presence is relevant and admissible evidence in a trial on a possession charge; but absent some showing of the defendant’s function at the still, its connection with possession is too tenuous to permit a reasonable inference of guilt — “the inference of the one from proof of the other is arbitrary . . . .” Tot v. United States, 319 U. S. 463, 467.
The United States has presented no cases in the courts which have sustained a conviction for possession based solely on the evidence of presence. All of the cases which deal with this issue and with which we are familiar have held presence alone, unilluminated by other facts, to be insufficient proof of possession. Moreover, the Government apparently concedes in this case that except for the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the 1958 amendments to the Internal Revenue Code, which added the presumptions relating to illegal distilling operations, the crime of possession could not validly be inferred from mere presence at the still site.
According to the Government, however, the 1958 amendments were, among other things, designed to overrule Bozza and must be viewed as broadening the substantive crime of possession to include all those present at a set-up still who have any connection with the illicit enterprise. So broadened, it is argued, the substantive crime of “possessing,” under the teachings of Gainey, could be acceptably proved by showing presence alone.
We are 'not persuaded by this argument, primarily because the amendments did not change a word of §5601 (a)(1), which defines the substantive crime. Possession, custody or control remains the crime which the Government must prove. The amendments, insofar as relevant here, simply added §5601 (b)(1) and permitted an inference of possession from the fact of presence. Moreover, the inference was not irrebuttable. It was allowable only if the defendant failed to explain his presence to the satisfaction of the jury. Plainly, it seems to us, the defendant would be exonerated if he satisfactorily explained or the circumstances showed that his function at the still was not in furtherance of the specific crime of possession, custody or control. If a defendant is charged with possession and it is unmistakably shown that delivery, for example, was his sole duty, it would seem very odd under the present formulation of the Code to hold that his explanation had merely proved his guilt of “possessing” by showing some connection with the illegal business.
The Government’s position would equate “possessing” with “carrying on.” We are not convinced that the amendments to the Code included in the Excise Tax Technical Changes Act of 1958 were intended to work any such substantive change in the basic scheme of the Act, which was, in the words of the Government’s brief in this Court, “to make criminal every meaningful form of participation in, or assistance to, the operation of an illegal still by an elaborate pattern of partially redundant provisions — some specific and some general — designed to close all loopholes.” Possession, custody or control was one of the specific crimes defined in the Code and we do not think that the 1958 amendments worked any change in this regard. On the legislative record before us, we reject the Government’s expansive reading of the 1958 amendments.
Congress may have intended by the 1958 amendments to avoid the Bozza case. But it chose to do so, not by changing the definition of the substantive crime, but by declaring presence to be sufficient evidence to prove the crime of possession beyond reasonable doubt. This approach obviously fails under the standards traditionally applied to such legislation. It may be, of course, that Congress has the power to make presence at an illegal still a punishable crime, but we find no clear indication that it intended to so exercise this power. The crime remains possession, not presence, and, with all due deference to the judgment of Congress, the former may not constitutionally be inferred from the latter.
Affirmed
MR. Justice Black concurs in the reversal of these convictions for the reasons stated in his dissent against affirmance of the conviction in United States v. Gainey, 380 U. S. 63, 74.
Mr. Justice Douglas concurs in the result for the reasons stated in his opinion in United States v. Gainey, 380 U. S. 63, 71.
Mr. Justice Fortas concurs in the result.
Respondents were indicted with two others whose convictions are not in issue here.
Section 5601 (a)(1) provides that any person who “has in his possession or custody, or under his control, any still or distilling apparatus set up which is not registered, as required by section 5179 (a) . . . shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both . . . .”
Section 5601 (a) (8) provides that any person who, “not being a distiller authorized by law to produce distilled spirits, produces distilled spirits by distillation or any other process from any mash, wort, wash, or other material . . . shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both
Section 5601 (b)(1) of 26 U. S. C. provides: “Whenever on trial for violation of subsection (a)(1) the defendant is shown to have been at the site or place where, and at the time when, a still or distilling apparatus was set up without having been registered, such presence of the defendant shall be deemed sufficient evidence to authorize conviction, unless the defendant explains such presence to the satisfaction of the jury (or of the court when tried without jury).”
Section 5601 (b)(4) of 26 U. S. C. provides: “Whenever on trial for violation of subsection (a)(8) the defendant is shown to have been at the site or place where, and at the time when, such distilled spirits were produced by distillation or any other process from mash, wort, wash, or other material, such presence of the defendant shall be deemed sufficient evidence to authorize conviction, unless the defendant explains such presence to the satisfaction of the jury (or of the court when tried without jury).”
Mobile, J. & K. C. R. Co. v. Turnipseed, 219 U. S. 35; Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U. S. 219; Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U. S. 61; McFarland v. American Sugar Rjg. Co., 241 U. S. 79; Manley v. Georgia, 279 U. S. 1; Western & Atlantic R. Co. v. Henderson, 279 U. S. 639; Morrison v. California, 291 U. S. 82.
E. g., Pugliese v. United States, 343 F. 2d 837 (C. A. 1st Cir., 1965); Barrett v. United States, 322 F. 2d 292 (C. A. 5th Cir., 1963), rev’d on other grounds, sub nom. United States v. Gainey, 380 U. S. 63; McFarland v. United States, 273 F. 2d 417 (C. A. 5th Cir., 1960) (dictum); Vick v. United States, 216 F. 2d 228 (C. A. 5th Cir., 1954); United States v. De Vito, 68 F. 2d 837 (C. A. 2d Cir., 1934); Graceffo v. United States, 46 F. 2d 852 (C. A. 3d Cir., 1931).
Brief for petitioner, p. 14. See also brief for petitioner, p. 33, United States v. Gainey, 380 U. S. 63; Bozza v. United States, 330 U. S. 160, 164.
The relevant Senate and House Reports discussing the presumptions added by § 5601 (b) are in identical language, which was borrowed from an analysis prepared by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the Internal Revenue Service (see Hearings before a Subcommittee of the House Committee on Ways and Means on Excise Tax Technical and Administrative Problems, Part I, 84th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 208):
“These paragraphs are new. Their purpose is to create a rebut-table presumption of guilt in the case of a person who is found at illicit distilling or rectifying premises, but who, because of the practical impossibility of proving his actual participation in the illegal activities except by inference drawn from his presence when the illegal acts were committed, cannot be convicted under the ruling of the Supreme Court in Bozza v. United States (330 U. S. 160).
“The prevention of the illicit production or rectification of alcoholic spirits, and the consequent defrauding of the United States of tax, has long been rendered more difficult by the failure to obtain a conviction of a person discovered at the site of illicit distilling or rectifying premises, but who was not, at the time of such discovery, engaged in doing any specific act.
“In the Bozza case, the Supreme Court took the position that to sustain conviction, the testimony ‘must point directly to conduct within the narrow margins which the statute alone defines.’ These new provisions are designed to avoid the effect of that holding as to future violations.” S. Rep. No. 2090, 85th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 188-189; H. R. Rep. No. 481, 85th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 175.
In reference to the re-enactment of § 5601 (a) (1), the provision that defines the substantive offense, the Reports merely say, “This paragraph is a restatement of existing law. . . S. Rep. No. 2090, 85th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 186; H. R. Rep. No. 481, 85th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 173.
The Government advanced a somewhat similar contention in Tot. It was rejected, partly on the ground that it was not supported by legislative history. Tot v. United States, 319 U. S. 463, 472. Cf. United States v. Universal C. I. T. Credit Corp., 344 U. S. 218.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | D | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Warren
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner waived trial by jury and was convicted in a Connecticut state court of wilfully injuring a public building in violation of Connecticut General Statutes § 53-45 (a). Specifically, petitioner and his codefendant Arnold were found guilty of having painted swastikas on a Norwalk, Connecticut, synagogue. The trial took place before our decision in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643, but the conviction was affirmed on appeal after that decision. Connecticut v. Fahy, 149 Conn. 577, 183 A. 2d 256 (1962). At the trial of the case, a can of black paint and a paint brush were admitted into evidence over petitioner’s objection. On appeal, the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors held that the paint and brush had been obtained by means of an illegal search and seizure. It further held that the Mapp decision applies to cases pending on appeal in Connecticut courts at the time that decision was rendered, and, therefore, the trial court erred in admitting the paint and brush into evidence. However, the court affirmed petitioner’s conviction because it found the admission of the unconstitutionally obtained evidence to have been harmless error. We granted certiorari, 372 U. S. 928 (1963).
On the facts of this case, it is not now necessary for us to decide whether the erroneous admission of evidence obtained by an illegal search and seizure can ever be subject to the normal rules of “harmless error” under the federal standard of what constitutes harmless error. Compare Ker v. California, 374 U. S. 23. We find that the erroneous admission of this unconstitutionally obtained evidence at this petitioner’s trial was prejudicial; therefore, the error was not harmless, and the conviction must be reversed. We are not concerned here with whether there was sufficient evidence on which the petitioner could have been convicted without the evidence complained of. The question is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction. To decide this question, it is necessary to review the facts of the case and the evidence adduced at trial.
On February 1, 1960, between the hours of 4 and 5 a. m., swastikas were painted with black paint on the steps and walls of a Norwalk synagogue. At about 4:40 a. m., Officer Lindwall of the Norwalk police saw an automobile being operated without lights about a block from the synagogue. Upon stopping the car, Lindwall found that Fahy was driving and Arnold was a passenger. Lindwall questioned Fahy and Arnold about their reason for being out at that hour, and they told him they had been to a diner for coffee and were going home. Lindwall also checked the car and found a can of black paint and a paint brush under the front seat. Having no reason to do otherwise, Lindwall released Fahy and Arnold. He followed the car to Fahy’s home. Later the same morning, Lindwall learned of the painting of the swastikas. Thereupon, he went to Fahy’s home and — without having applied for or obtained an arrest or search warrant— entered the garage under the house and removed from Fahy’s car the can of paint and the brush. About two hours later, Lindwall returned to the Fahy home, this time in the company of two other Norwalk policemen. Pursuant to a valid arrest warrant, the officers arrested Fahy and Arnold.
At trial, the court admitted the paint and brush into evidence over petitioner’s objection. We assume, as did the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors, that doing so was error because this evidence was obtained by an illegal search and seizure and was thus inadmissible under the rule of Mapp v. Ohio. Examining the effect of this evidence upon the other evidence adduced at trial and upon the conduct of the defense, we find inescapable the conclusion that the trial court’s error was prejudicial and cannot be called harmless.
Obviously, the tangible evidence of the paint and brush was itself incriminating. In addition, it was used to corroborate the testimony of Officer Lindwall as to the presence of petitioner near the scene of the crime at about the time it was committed and as to the presence of a can of paint and a brush in petitioner’s car at that time. When Officer Lindwall testified at trial concerning that incident, the following transpired:
“Q. Will you tell the Court what you found in the car?
“A. Checking on the passengers’ side, under the front seat I found a small jar of paint and a paint brush.
“Q. Are you able to identify this object I show you?
“A. Yes.
“Q. What is it?
“A. A jar of paint I found in the motor vehicle.
“Q. I show you this object and ask you if you can identify that.
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. What is it?
“A. A paint brush.
“Q. Where did you first see this paint brush?
“A. Under the front seat of Mr. Fahy’s car.”
The brush and paint were offered in evidence and were received over petitioner’s objection. The trial court found: “13. The police found the same can of black paint and the brush in the car which the defendants had been operating when stopped by Officer Lindwall earlier in the morning.” It can be inferred from this that the admission of the illegally seized evidence made Lindwall’s testimony far more damaging than it would otherwise have been.
In addition, the illegally obtained evidence was used as the basis of opinion testimony to the effect that the paint and brush matched the markings on the synagogue, thus forging another link between the accused and the crime charged. At trial, Norwalk Police Officer Tigano testified that he had examined the markings on the synagogue and had determined that they were put on with,black paint. He further testified that he had examined the contents of the can illegally seized from Fahy’s car and had determined that it contained black paint. Even more damaging was Tigano’s testimony that he had taken the illegally seized brush to the synagogue “to measure the width of the brush with the width of the paintings of the swastikas.” Over objection, Tigano then testified that the brush “fitted the same as the paint brush in some drawings of the lines and some it did not due to the fact the paint dripped.” Thus the trial court found: “14. The two-inch paint brush matched the markings made with black paint upon the synagogue.” In relation to this testimony, the prejudicial effect of admitting the illegally obtained evidence is obvious.
Other incriminating evidence admitted at trial concerned admissions petitioner made when he was arrested and a full confession made at the police station later. Testifying at trial, Norwalk Police Lieutenant Virgulak recounted what took place when Fahy, who was just waking up at the time, was arrested:
“I told him I [sic, he] was under arrest for painting swastikas on the synagogue. He said, 'Oh, that?’ and he appeared to lay back in bed.
“Q. Did you have any further conversation with Fahy before you reached the police station that you remember?
“A. I asked him what the reason was for painting the swastikas and he said it was only a prank and I asked him why and he said for kicks.”
At the police station, there was further questioning, and Fahy told Lieutenant Virgulak that he, Fahy, would take the responsibility for painting the swastikas. In addition, some hours after the arrest Arnold was asked to give a statement of the events, and he complied, dictating a complete confession of two typewritten pages. After this confession was admitted against Arnold at trial, Lieutenant Virgulak testified that he had read the confession to Fahy and:
“Q. After you finished reading it, will you tell us whether or not he [Fahy] made any comment?
“A. I asked him what his version was and he said the story was as I had it from Mr. Arnold. I asked him if he would like to give a written statement and he declined.”
The record does not show whether Fahy knew that the police had seized the paint and brush before he made his admissions at the time of arrest and en route to the police station. In oral argument, however, counsel for the State told the Court that Fahy “probably” had been told of the search and seizure by then. Of course, the full confession was more damaging to the defendants, and unquestionably the defendants knew the police-had obtained the paint and brush by the time they confessed. But the defendants were not allowed to pursue the illegal search and seizure inquiry at trial, because, at the time of trial, the exclusionary rule was not applied in Connecticut state courts. Thus petitioner was unable to claim at trial that the illegally seized evidence induced his admissions and confession. Petitioner has told the Court that he would so claim were he allowed to challenge the search and seizure as illegal at a new trial. And we think that such a line of inquiry is permissible. As the Court has noted in the past: “The essence of a provision forbidding the acquisition of evidence in a certain way is that not merely evidence so acquired shall not be used before the Court but that it shall not be used at all.” See Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U. S. 385, 392; see also Nardone v. United States, 308 U. S. 338; Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471. Thus petitioner should have had a chance to show that his admissions were induced by being confronted with the illegally seized evidence.
Nor can we ignore the cumulative prejudicial effect of this evidence upon the conduct of the defense at trial. It was only after admission of the paint and brush and only after their subsequent use to corroborate other state’s evidence and only after introduction of the confession that the defendants took the stand, admitted their acts, and tried to establish that the nature of those acts was not within the scope of the felony statute under which the defendants had been charged. We do not mean to suggest that petitioner has presented any valid claim based on the privilege against self-incrimination. We merely note this course of events as another indication of the prejudicial effect of the erroneously admitted evidence.
From the foregoing it clearly appears that the erroneous admission of this illegally obtained evidence was prejudicial to petitioner and hence it cannot be called harmless error. Therefore, the conviction is reversed, and the cause is remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Arnold was tried and convicted with petitioner Fahy, and their appeals were heard and decided together. Arnold also filed a petition for certiorari; however, that petition was dismissed on Arnold’s motion before we granted Fahy’s petition.
Connecticut’s statutory harmless error rule states that the Supreme Court of Errors need not reverse a judgment below if it finds the errors complained of “have not materially injured the appellant.” Connecticut General Statutes §52-265 (1958).
The Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors rejected petitioner’s argument that painting swastikas on a synagogue was “defacement,” not “injury,” to a public building. The statute involved was passed in 1832 and made it illegal to “injure or deface” a public building. In 1875, the words “or deface” were omitted, and the statute remained essentially unchanged thereafter. The Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors held that “injure” includes defacement and thus includes petitioner’s acts.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Railway Labor Act was amended in 1951 to authorize labor organizations .representing employees of carriers to make: “checkoff” agreements with the carriers for the deduction from employees’ wages of periodic dues, initiation fees and assessments. Section 2 Eleventh (b), as added by 64 Stat. 1238, 45 U. S. C. § 152 Eleventh (b). The améndment contains a proviso “[t]hat no such agreement shall be effective with respect to any individual employee until he shall have furnished the employer with a written assignment to the labor organization . . . which shall be revocable in writing after the expiration of one year . . . .” (Emphasis suppliéd.) ,In this case the Dues Deduction Agreement between respondents Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen and Southern Pacific Company required that there be used, as a necessary form for revoking an assignment, nothing other than a writing executed on a form furnished by the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen and forwarded by that organization to the employer. The petitioner challenges this contractual regulation as' violative of the employee’s statutory right to revoke the assignment. The District Court for the. Northern District of California held that the requirement was valid, reasoning that although it “may seem a bit. arbitrary” to-allow revocation only by means of the form provided by the Trainmen, it was “no burden” and was “easily complied with.” 155 F. Supp. 315, 317. The Court- of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit adopted the District Court’s reasoning and affirmed. 256 F. 2d 429. We granted certiorari to consider the important question of the scope of the proviso of § 2 Eleventh (b). 358 U. S. 812.
The petitioner is employed by respondent, Soúthern Pacific Company, and through March 1957 was a member of respondent Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen. He had executed an individual assignment authorizing the checkoff in his case. In March 1957, more than a year, after his assignment had been in effect, petitioner decided to join the Order of Railway Conductors and Brakemen. He notified the Trainmen of his resignation by letter dated. March 30, 1957, advising them that he was revoking the authorization to check off his dues and that he had sent a revocation form to the company. The same day a representative of the Conductors sent petitioner’s executed revocation form to the company and handed an executed duplicate revocation form to the Secretary-Treasurer of petitioner’s Lodge of the Trainmen.
The company and the Trainmen, relying on the provisions of the Dues Deduction Agreement, declined to honor the revocation forms executed by the petitioner, though they were identical with the form which the Dues Deduction Agreement- provided should be obtained from the Trainmen. The company advised that “[t]his matter is being directed to the attention of the appropriate officer of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen for handling in accordance with the Agreement.” The Trainmen’s loc,al Secretary-Treasurer in turn wrote the petitioner that the forms he had executed and submitted were not acceptable. He said that “the only way that you can be released from Wage Assignment Authorization is by signing a'regulation A-2 card furnished by me and forwarded by me to the Company.” He enclosed such a card for the petitioner’s signature and noted “We would be sorry to lose you as a member of the BRT and hope that you may reconsider.” As a result of the refusal of the company and the Trainmen to treat the petitioner’s forms as valid, it was too late to stop the checkoff of petitioner’s April 1957 wages.
The petitioner declined to execute any further forms and commenced this-suit in the District Court against the company and the Trainmen. His complaint alleged that the action was brought under the Railway Labor Act, an “Act of Congress regulating commerce”; in this posture the jurisdiction of the District Court was properly invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1337. The complaint alleged that the action was brought on behalf of petitioner and others similarly situated; the parties are in dispute as to how many other employees were in fact similarly situated with petitioner, but, with the courts below, we do not find it necessary to resolve the dispute, and with them, we decide this case on the merits. Thé complaint prayed for a declaration that the petitioner, under the proviso, had complied with the requirements for effecting revocation ahd had terminated all authority of the company to check off his wages in favor of the Trainmen. Injunctive relief was also sought. The company and the Trainmen admitted that they were continuing to treat the petitioner’s assignment as unrevoked, contending that the collective bargaining authority under the 1951 amendment to make checkoff agreements included authority to agree upon the challenged provisions of the Dues Deduction Agreement. We disagree with the District Court and the Court of Appeals and hold that the restrictive provisions of the Dues Deduction Agreement are violative of the 1951 amendment.
First. The 1951 amendment relaxed provisions of the Railway Labor Act dating from 1934 which had forbidden carriers and labor organizations from making either “union-shop” arrangements, or arrangements whereby carriers would check off from employee wages amounts owed to a labor organization for dues, .initiation fees and assessments. It thus became lawful to bargain collectively for “union-shop” arid “checkoff” arrangements; but this power was made subject to limitations. The limitation here pertinent is that, by force of the proviso, the authority to make checkoff arrangements does not include authority to bind individual employees to submit to the checkoff. Any agreement was to be ineffective as to an employee who did not furnish the employer with a written assignment in favor of the labor organization, and any assignment made was to be “revocable iri writing after the expiration of one year . . . .” This failure to authorize agreements binding employees to sribmit to the checkoff was deliberate ori the part of Congress. Proposals to that end were expressly rejected. The bills originally introduced in the House and Senate, and favorably reported by the respective House and Senate Committees, would simply have authorized carriers and labor organizations “to make agreements providing for the deduction by such carrier or carriers from the wages of its or their employees in a craft or class and payment to the labor organization representing the craft* or class of such employees, of any dues, initiation fees or assessments which may be payable to such labor organization.” H. R. Rep. No. 2811, p. 1, and S.'Rep. No. 2262, pp. 1-2-, 81st Cong., 2d Sess. Indeed the House Report reveals that the choice finally made of making implementation of the checkoff a matter of individual employee assignment was at first considered and rejected; “the committee thought that the making of such assignments . . . should remain a subject for collective bargaining.” But the matter had been a recurrent subject of concern particularly at the Senate Hearings, and between the time of the Committee Reports and the consideration of the bill on the Senate floor, the Senate Committee reversed its view and developed the proviso allowing the individual employee to decide for himself whether to submit to the checkoff, and whether to revoke an .authorization after the expiration of one year. See 96 Cong. Rec. 15735, 16268. In this form the bill was passed by both Houses and approved.
The structure of § 2 Eleventh (b) then is simple: carriers and labor organizations are authorized to bargain for arrangements for a checkoff by the employer on behalf of the organization. Latitude is allowed in the terms of such arrangements, but not past the point such terms impinge upon the freedom expressly reserved to the individual employee to. decide whether he will authorize the checkoff in his case. Similarly Congress consciously and deliberately chose to deny carriers and-labor organizations authority to reach terms which would restrict the employee’s complete freedom to' revoke an assignment by a writing directed to the employer after one year. Congress was specifically concerned with keeping these areas of individual choice off the bargaining table. It is plainly our duty to effectuate this obvious intention of Congress, and we must therefore be careful not to allow the employee’s freedom- of decision to be eroded in the name of procedure, or otherwise. We see no authority given by the. Act to carriers and labor organizations to restrict the employee’s individual freedom of decision by such regulations as were agreed upon in the Dues Deduction Agreement. The question is not whether these restrictions might abstractly be called “reasonable” or not.
Second. It is argued that the requirement that the •revocation notice be on a form provided by the Trainmen is necessary in the interests of orderly procedure, and that the collective agreement provision was an appropriate place to specify this procedure. We might note that the' original Committee rejection of the concept of individual authorization and revocation was supported for much the same reasons — that it was inconsistent with orderly procedure — but this view did not prevail finally in the Act. Of course, the parties may act to minimize the procedural problems caused by Congress’ choice. Carriers and labor organizations may set up procedures through the collective ágreement for processing, between themselves, individual assignments and revocations received, and carriers may make reasonable designations, in or out of collective bargaining contracts, of agents to whom revocations may be sent. Revocations, after all, must be sent somewhere. And doubtless forms may be established, by way of suggestion, and means for making, them available set up. But here a specific procedure was established and made mandatory, imposing requirements over and above what we can perceive to be fairly those of the statute — which are simply that there be a writing, attributable to the employee and fairly expressing a revocation of his assignment, furnished the carrier.
The respondents urge that the requirement is necessary in the interests of preventing fraud and forgery, and of obviating disputes as to the authenticity of revocation instruments. Such problems are hardly peculiar to this setting. If the company suspects fraüd or forgery in a revocation, it is within its power informally to check the matter with the employee. But we think it has no power, whether pursuant to action taken jointly with the labor organization in the collective bargaining agreement or to unilateral declaration, to. treat as nullities revocation notices which are clearly intended as such and about whose authenticity there is no dispute.
The Trainmen next justify the procedure as a necessary protection to the employee from himself — that is, from his desire to revoke the checkoff — and from outside undue influence to do so, presumably that'of a rival organization- or of management. But Congress apparently foresaw and discounted any necessity for this protection when it took the matter out of the hands of the carriers and labor organizations and left it to the employee’s individual choice. It did not make any provision for preliminary correspondence or dealings between the employee and the organization when the employee wanted to stop the checkoff, whether incident to terminating his affiliation or not. The complete freedom of individual choice in this area, undampened by the necessity of such preliminary dealings with the labor organization to make it effective, may seem unfortunate to labor organizations, but it is a problem with which we think Congress intended them to live.
Third. There is some suggestion that, possibly apart from the provisions of the Act, because petitioner was a member of the Trainmen and represented by .them in the negotiation of the bargaining agreement, he is bound here by the action of his agent, as it were, in establishing this provision. But the short answer is that the proviso makes it clear that, the organization was not to function as its members’ agent in waiving their - statutory revocation rights; we doubt whether the right to revoke could be waived at all in advance of the time for its exercise, but in any event, a waiver through the collective agreement would, under the statute, be the last conceivably permissible. And equally lacking in merit is the suggestion that the requirement of a Trainmen-furnished form is so trivial as to make the whole controversy de minimis and perhaps deny petitioner and those in his position judicial redress. Additional paper work or correspondence, after he once has indicated his desire to revoke in writing, might well be some deterrent, so Congress might think, to the exer-. cise of free choice by an individual worker. When one considers the .problem in its industrial setting and recalls the fact that individual workmen are not as equipped for and inclined to correspondence as are business offices, any complication of the procedure necessary to withdraw or the addition of any extra steps to it may be burdensome. That involved, here may deter employees from taking an action they might have taken if no preliminary contact with their lodge was necessary. And within: the. area that the Act leaves open for solicitation by rival organizations — as where no union shop has been established, or within the area where even a worker under a union-shop arrangement can change affiliations, see Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Rychlik, 352 U. S. 480, 492-494 — the matter-may be far from trivial, as the facts in this case suggest. Organizational, efforts are attended by persuading the recruit to drop his membership in his present union and terminate any checkoff of his wages in its favor. There may well be a difference in the weight of persuasion necessary to enlist the worker if he cannot at once effectuate his intentions through papers furnished him on the spot by the recruiting organization. We do not say whether the “cooling off” period which the procedure insisted upon here creates would be wise or unwise as a matter of policy. It is enough to say that we believe the Act has not left any place for it. We think the added requirement involved here is meaningfully burdensome when considered in context; but in any event, wé do not think the Act empowered carriers and labor organizations to bargain for any restrictions on the individual’s right to revoke his assignment, even if later, while insisting on them, they choose to describe them as petty.
Reversed.
The Act is c. 347, 44 Stat. 577, c. 691, 48 Stat. .1185, as amended, .45 U. S. C. §§ 151-163. The Act was originally enacted in 1926 and considerably rewritten in 1934.
The amendment added a new paragraph to § 2 of the Act, § 2 Eleventh.
The contract, provision is as follows: “Both the authorization forms and the revocation of authorization forms shall be reproduced and furnished as necessary by the Organization without cost to the Company. The Organization shall assume full responsibility for the procurement and execution of the forms by employes and for the delivery of such forms to the Company.” •
The Trainmen’s position, concurred in by the company, is that this provision means that no revocation cards are to be recognized “except those reproduced by our organization.” • While this construction of the agreement is hardly an obvious one, it is the construction put on the agreement by the' parties to it, the Southern Pacific and the Trainmen, and since' petitioner in this suit does not question it as a matter of construction, we of course accept it here.
Since there was no question of interpretation or application of the collective agreement, but rather only one of its validity under the statute, the case is not one in which resort to the grievance and Adjustment Board machinery provided by the Railway Labor Act was required. “This dispute involves the validity of the contract, not its meaning.” Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Howard, 343 U. S. 768, 774. Cf. Slocum v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 339 U. S. 239, 242-244. The case presents an employee dispute as much, if not more, with the lab'or organization as with the employer. Cf. Steele v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 323 U. S. 192, 205.
“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action or proceeding arising under any Act of Congress regulating commerce or protecting trade and commerce against restraints and monopolies.” This jurisdictional provision; unlike the general “arising mder” statute, 28 U. S. C. § 1331, requires no monetary jurisdictional .mount. See Mulford v. Smith, 307 U. S. 38, 46; Turner, Dennis & Cowry Lumber Co. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 271 U. S. 259, 261.
Petitioner originally listed -24 others as being'similarly situated with him. The respondents-stated that 11 of these were in fact not so situated. After this, petitioner listed others. If it appears in fact necessary on remand, the District Court may conduct such further investigation of the master as will allow it to enter an appropriate judgment.
Section 2 Fifth, as added by § 2, c. 691., 48 Stat. 1188, 45 U. S. C. § 152 Fifth, provided that “No carrier, its officers, or agents shall require any person seeking employmént to sign any. contract or agreement promising to join or not to join a labor organization . . § 2 Fourth, as added by § 2, 48 Stát. 1187, 45 U. S. C. § 152 Fourth, provided that “it shall be unlawful for any carrier ... to influence or coerce employees in an effort to induce them to join or remain or not1 to join or- remain members of any labor organization .’. .
The 1951 amendment permitted carriers and labor organizations “to make agreements, requiring, as a condition of continued employment, that within sixty days following the beginning of1 such employment, or the effective.date of such agreements, whichever is the later, all employees shall become members of the labor organization representing their craft or class . '. . .” Section 2‘Eleventh (a), as added by 64 Stat. 12381
Section 2 Fourth, as added by §2, c. 691, 48 Stat. 1187, 45 U. S. C. § 152 Fourth, provided that “it- shall be unlawful for Sny carrier ... to deduct from the wages of employees any dues, fees, assessments, or .other contributions payable to labor organizations, or to collect or to assist in the collection of any-such-dues, fees, assessments, or other contributions ;. . .
The 19.51 amendment permitted carriers and labor organizations, subject to the proviso in the' text, “to make agreements providing for the deduction by such carrier or carriers from the wages of its or their employees in a craft or class and payment to the labor organization representing the craft or class of such employees, of any periodic dues, initiation fees, and assessments (not including fines and penalties), uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or •retaining membership . . . .” Section 2 Eleventh (b), as added by 64 Stat. 1238.
' The 1951 amendment provided that “Any provisions in paragraphs Fourth and Fifth of section 2 of this Act' in conflict herewith are to the extent of such conflict amended.” Section 2 Eleventh (d), as added by 64 Stat. 1239.
H. R. Rep. No. 2811, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., p. 6.
The proviso was inserted* by way of an amendment which was submitted by Senator Hill on behalf of himself and Senator Taft, with the agreement of the Committee. See 96 Cong. Rec. 15735. For the reservations of the Committee members which doubtless led to this, see note 10, infra.
At the time of the rendition of the Senate Committee Report, S. Rep. No. 2262, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., Senators Taft, H. Alexander Smith, and Donnell attached a statement of supplementary views by which they reserved the right to introduce and support on the floor amendments, inter alia, which would “cause the . .’ . check-off conditions of employees of industry covered by the Railway Labor Act to .be in general accord with the . . . check-off conditions of employees of other industry.” Id., at 5. These three Senators had been among those responsible for pressing an amendment to the' Senate Committee version of the Taft-Hartley Act which restored to the Senate version of that Act the provision for individual option on the checkoff which they had desired during Committee deliberation, and now found in § 302 (c) (4) of that Act, 61 Stat. 157, 29 U. S. C. § 186'(c)(4). See S. Rep. No. 105, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 53. The provision finally enacted in the Railway Labor amendment was quite similar to that of the Taft-Hartley Act.
For the concern with the matter at the Senate hearings, see Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, United States Senate, on S. 3295, 81st Cóng., 2d Sess.', pp. 74, 86, 94, 173, 188, 208. Senator Donnell was primarily concerned with the point. Id., at 74, 86, 94, 188.
There were a few references to the matter at the House hearings. See .Hearings before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, on H. R. 7789, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 33, 91, 261.
The House Report, note 8, supra, at 6, had a.gued: “[TJhere is a stability of employment relationships in the railroad industry not found in industry generally. The committee felt that if an employee is required to become and remain a member of a labor organization as a condition of employment with a resulting obligation to pay dues, initiation fees, and- assessments, and with the slight prospect of changing employment or his union, affiliation within the industry no statutory requirement for individual assignments seemed necessary. Furthermore; the physical nature of railroad and airline operations would make a mandatory requirement of individual assignments an exceedingly cumbersome • procedure. Employees of a single carrier are scattered over thousands of miles of. territory and many are located in isolated spots where ■ few other persons are employed. It would seem that a mandatory requirement for assignments from individual • employees would result in confusion and lack of stability. . . .”
The Act makes no formal relationship between a union-shop arrangement and a checkoff arrangement; under it the parties can negotiate either one without the other, if they are so disposed.' And of course, a labor organization member who is subject to a union-shop arrangement need not subscribe to the checkoff; he can maintain his standing by paying his dues personally.
The respondents make some suggestion that petitioner was not harmed because in any event the carrier could not continue a checkoff in favor of the Trainmen after it learned that he was no longer a member. Section 2 Eleventh (c) provides that “no [checkoff] agreement made pursuant to. subparagraph (b) shall provide for deductions from his [an employee within specified categories] wages for periodic dues, initiation fees, or assessments payable to any labor organization other than that in which he holds membership.” 64 Stat. 1238. But there is no showing when the carrier received notice of petitioner’s change of membership; the papers used by him to revoke the checkoff and furnished the carrier did not refer to such a change. And of course a worker could revoke his checkoff authorization and remain a member of the same labor organization. It is clear that Congress meant to make the checkoff machinery stand on its own feet and be independent of any machinery for changing labor organizations — notice of which would ordinarily be sent only to the organizations involved.'
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | G | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellees are mother and child. The husband enlisted in the United States Army and served in Vietnam. The mother applied for Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits at a time when the amount of the monthly allotment she received by virtue of her husband's military service was less than her “need” as computed by the California agency and less than the monthly AFDC grant an adult with one child receives in California. She was denied relief. Although the Social Security Act, 42 U. S. C. §§ 301-1394, grants aid to families with “dependent children,” and includes in the term “dependent child” one “who has been deprived of parental support or care by reason of . . . continued absence from the home,” 42 U. S. C. § 606 (a), California construed “continued absence” as not including military absence. It is unquestioned that her child is in fact “needy.”
When the husband's allotment check was stopped, ap-pellee again applied for AFDC benefits. She again was denied the benefits, this time because California had adopted a regulation which specifically prohibited the payment of AFDC benefits to needy families where the absence of a parent was due to military service.
This action is a class action seeking a declaration of the invalidity of the regulation and an injunction restraining its enforcement on the ground that it conflicts with the Social Security Act and denies appellees the Fourteenth Amendment rights of due process and equal protection.
“When one parent is physically absent from the home on a temporary basis. Examples are visits, trips made in connection with current or prospective employment, active duty in the Armed Services.”
A three-judge District Court was convened and by a divided vote granted the relief sought. 325 F. Supp. 1272. The case is here by appeal. 28 U. S. C. §§ 1253, 2101 (b). We noted probable jurisdiction, 404 U. S. 1013.
Section 402 (a) (10) of the Social Security Act, 42 U. S. C. § 602 (a) (10), places on each State participating in the AFDC program the requirement that “aid to families with dependent children shall be furnished with reasonable promptness to all eligible individuals.” “Eligibility,” so defined, must be measured by federal standards. King v. Smith, 392 U. S. 309. There, we were faced with an Alabama regulation which defined a mother’s paramour as a “parent” for § 606 (a)(1) purposes, thus permitting the State to deny AFDC benefits to needy dependent children on the theory that there was no parent who was continually absent from the home. We held that Congress had defined “parent” as a breadwinner who was legally obligated to support his children, and that Alabama was precluded from altering that federal standard. The importance of our holding was stressed in Townsend v. Swank, 404 U. S. 282, 286:
“King v. Smith establishes that, at least in the absence of congressional authorization for the exclusion clearly evidenced from the Social Security Act or its legislative history, a state eligibility standard that excludes persons eligible for assistance under federal AFDC standards violates the Social Security Act and is therefore invalid under the Supremacy Clause.” (Emphasis supplied.)
In Townsend, we also expressly disapproved the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) policy which permitted States to vary eligibility requirements from the federal standards without express or clearly implied congressional authorization. Ibid.
Townsend involved § 406 (a) (2) (B) of the Act, 42 U. S. C. §606 (a)(2)(B), which includes in the definition of “dependent children” those “under the age of twenty-one and (as determined by the State in accordance with standards prescribed by the Secretary [of HEW]) a student regularly attending a school, college, or university, or regularly attending a course of vocational or technical training designed to fit him for gainful employment.” Illinois had defined AFDC eligible dependent children to include 18-20-year-old high school or vocational school children but not children of the same age group attending college. We held that § 606 (a) (2) (B) precluded that classification because it varied from the federal standard for needy dependent children. Involved in the present controversy is another eligibility criterion for federal matching funds set forth in the Act, namely the “continued absence” of a parent from the home. If California’s definition conflicts with the federal criterion then it, too, is invalid under the Supremacy Clause.
HEW’s regulations for federal matching funds provide that:
“Continued absence of the parent from the home constitutes the reason for deprivation of parental support or care when the parent is out of the home, the nature of the absence is such as either to interrupt or to terminate the parent’s functioning as a provider of maintenance, physical care, or guidance for the child, and the known or indefinite duration of the absence precludes counting on the parent’s performance of his function in planning for the present support or care of the child. If these conditions exist, the parent may be absent for any reason, and he may have left only recently or some time previously.”
The Solicitor General advises us that although HEW reads the term “continued absence” to permit the payment of federal matching funds to families where the parental absence is due to military service, it has approved state plans under which families in this category are not eligible for AFDC benefits. HEW has included “service in the armed forces or other military service” as an example of a situation falling under the above definition of “continued absence.” HEW Handbook of Public Assistance Administration, pt. IV, § 3422.2.
Our difficulty with that position is that “continued absence from the home” accurately describes a parent on active military duty. The House Report speaks of children “in families lacking a father’s support,” H. R. Rep. No. 615, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 10, and the Senate Report refers to “children in families which have been deprived of a father’s support.” S. Rep. No. 628, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 17. While the Senate Report noted that “[t]hese are principally families with female heads who are widowed, divorced, or deserted,” ibid., it was not stated or implied that eligibility by virtue of a parent’s “continued absence” was limited to cases of divorce or desertion.
We agree that “continued absence” connotes, as HEW says, that “the parent may be absent for any reason.” We search the Act in vain, moreover, for any authority to make “continued absence” into an accordion-like concept, applicable to some parents because of “continued absence” but not to others.
The presence in the home of the parent who has the legal obligation to support is the key to the AFDC program, King v. Smith, 392 U. S., at 327; Lewis v. Martin, 397 U. S. 552, 559. Congress looked to “work relief” programs and “the revival of private industry” to help the parent find the work needed to support the family. S. Rep. No. 628, supra, at 17, and the AFDC program was designed to meet a need unmet by depression-era programs aimed at providing work for breadwinners. King v. Smith, supra, at 328. That need was the protection of children in homes without such a breadwinner. Ibid. It is clear that “military orphans” are in this category, for, as stated by the Supreme Court of Washington, a man in the military service
“has little control over his family's economic destiny. He has no labor union or other agency to look to as a means of persuading his employer to pay him a living wage. He is without access to collective bargaining or any negotiating forum or other means of economic persuasion, or even the informal but concerted support of his fellow employees. He cannot quit his job and seek a better paying one. . . . [TJhere is no action he could lawfully take to make his earnings adequate while putting in full time on his job. His was a kind of involuntary employment where legally he could do virtually nothing to improve the economic welfare of his family.” Kennedy v. Dept. of Public Assistance, 79 Wash. 2d 728, 732-733, 489 P. 2d 154, 157.
Stoddard v. Fisher, 330 F. Supp. 566, held a Maine regulation invalid under the Supremacy Clause which denied AFDC aid where the father was continually absent because of his military service. Judge Coffin said:
“We cannot help but note the irony of a result which would deny assistance to the family of a man who finds that family disqualified from receiving AFDC on the ground that he has removed himself from the possibility of receiving public work relief by voluntarily undertaking, for inadequate compensation, the defense of his country.” Id., at 571 n. 8.
We cannot assume here, anymore than we could in King v. Smith, supra, that while Congress “intended to provide programs for the economic security and protection of all children,” it also “intended arbitrarily to leave one class of destitute children entirely without meaningful protection.” 392 U. S., at 330. We are especially confident Congress could not have designed an Act leaving uncared for an entire class who became “needy children” because their fathers were in the Armed Services defending their country.
We hold that there is no congressional authorization for States to exclude these so-called military orphans from AFDC benefits. Accordingly we affirm the judgment of the three-judge court.
Affirmed.
Calif. Dept. Soc. Welfare Reg. EAS § 42-350.11 provides that “continued absence” does not exist:
45 CFR §233.90 (c)(1) (iii).
The present record reveals that 22 States and the District of Columbia do furnish AFDC benefits to needy families of servicemen, while 19 States and Puerto Rico do not.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The motion for leave to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied. Treating the papers submitted as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is granted. In view of the representations of the Attorney General of Florida that the cause has become moot, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is vacated and the cause is remanded for such further proceedings as that Court may deem appropriate. See N. A. A. C. P. v. Committee on Offenses Against the Administration of Justice, 358 U. S. 40.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question here is whether a predispute agreement to arbitrate claims under the Securities Act of 1933 is unenforceable, requiring resolution of the claims only in a judicial forum.
I
Petitioners are individuals who invested about $400,000 in securities. They signed a standard customer agreement with the broker, which included a clause stating that the parties agreed to settle any controversies “relating to [the] accounts” through binding arbitration that complies with specified procedures. The agreement to arbitrate these controversies is unqualified, unless it is found to be unenforceable under federal or state law. Customer’s Agreement ¶ 13. The investments turned sour, and petitioners eventually sued respondent and its broker-agent in charge of the accounts, alleging that their money was lost in unauthorized and fraudulent transactions. In their complaint they pleaded various violations of federal and state law, including claims under § 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U. S. C. § 77l(2), and claims under three sections of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The District Court ordered all the claims to be submitted to arbitration except for those raised under § 12(2) of the Securities Act. It held that the latter claims must proceed in the court action under our clear holding on the point in Wilko v. Sivan, 346 U. S. 427 (1953). The District Court reaffirmed its ruling upon reconsideration and also entered a default judgment against the broker, who is no longer in the case. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the arbitration agreement is enforceable because this Court’s subsequent decisions have reduced Wilko to “obsolescence.” Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/Lehman Bros., Inc., 845 F. 2d 1296, 1299 (CA5 1988). We granted certiorari, 488 U. S. 954 (1988).
II
The Wilko case, decided in 1953, required the Court to determine whether an agreement to arbitrate future controversies constitutes a binding stipulation “to waive compliance with any provision” of the Securities Act, which is nullified by § 14 of the Act. 15 U. S. C. § 77n. The Court considered the language, purposes, and legislative history of the Securities Act and concluded that the agreement to arbitrate was void under §14. But the decision was a difficult one in view of the competing legislative policy embodied in the Arbitration Act, which the Court described as “not easily reconcilable,” and which strongly favors the enforcement of agreements to arbitrate as a means of securing “prompt, economical and adequate solution of controversies.” 346 U. S., at 438.
It has been recognized that Wilko was not obviously correct, for “the language prohibiting waiver of ‘compliance with any provision of this title’ could easily have been read to relate to substantive provisions of the Act without including the remedy provisions.” Alberto-Culver Co. v. Scherk, 484 F. 2d 611, 618, n. 7 (CA7 1973) (Stevens, J., dissenting), rev’d, 417 U. S. 506 (1974). The Court did not read the language this way in Wilko, however, and gave two reasons. First, the Court rejected the argument that “arbitration is merely a form of trial to be used in lieu of a trial at law.” 346 U. S., at 433. The Court found instead that § 14 does not permit waiver of “the right to select the judicial forum” in favor of arbitration, id., at 435, because “arbitration lacks the certainty of a suit at law under the Act to enforce [the buyer’s] rights,” id., at 432. Second, the Court concluded that the Securities Act was intended to protect buyers of securities, who often do not deal at arm’s length and on equal terms with sellers, by offering them “a wider choice of courts and venue” than is enjoyed by participants in other business transactions, making “the right to select the judicial forum” a particularly valuable feature of the Securities Act. Id., at 435.
We do not think these reasons justify an interpretation of § 14 that prohibits agreements to arbitrate future disputes relating to the purchase of securities. The Court’s characterization of the arbitration process in Wilko is pervaded by what Judge Jerome Frank called “the old judicial hostility to arbitration.” Kulukundis Shipping Co. v. Amtorg Trading Corp., 126 F. 2d 978, 985 (CA2 1942). That view has been steadily eroded over the years, beginning in the lower courts. See Scherk, supra, at 616 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (citing cases). The erosion intensified in our most recent decisions upholding agreements to arbitrate federal claims raised under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, see Shear- son/American Express Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U. S. 220 (1987), under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statutes, see ibid., and under the antitrust laws, see Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U. S. 614 (1985). See also Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U. S. 213, 221 (1985) (federal arbitration statute “requires that we rigorously enforce agreements to arbitrate”); Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp., 460 U. S. 1, 24 (1983) (“[(Questions of arbitrability must be addressed with a healthy regard for the federal policy favoring arbitration”). The shift in the Court’s views on arbitration away from those adopted in Wilko is shown by the flat statement in Mitsubishi: “By agreeing to arbitrate a statutory claim, a party does not forgo the substantive rights afforded by the statute; it only submits to their resolution in an arbitral, rather than a judicial, forum.” 473 U. S., at 628. To the extent that Wilko rested on suspicion of arbitration as a method of weakening the protections afforded in the substantive law to would-be complainants, it has fallen far out of step with our current strong endorsement of the federal statutes favoring this method of resolving disputes.
Once the outmoded presumption of disfavoring arbitration proceedings is set to one side, it becomes clear that the right to select the judicial forum and the wider choice of courts are not such essential features of the Securities Act that § 14 is properly construed to bar any waiver of these provisions. Nor are they so critical that they cannot be waived under the rationale that the Securities Act was intended to place buyers of securities on an equal footing with sellers. Wilko identified two different kinds of provisions in the Securities Act that would advance this objective. Some are substantive, such as the provision placing on the seller the burden of proving lack of scienter when a buyer alleges fraud. See 346 U. S., at 431, citing 15 U. S. C. §77Z(2). Others are procedural. The specific procedural improvements highlighted in Wilko are the statute’s broad venue provisions in the federal courts; the existence of nationwide service of process in the federal courts; the extinction of the amount-in-controversy requirement that had applied to fraud suits when they were brought in federal courts under diversity jurisdiction rather than as a federal cause of action; and the grant of concurrent jurisdiction in the state and federal courts without possility of removal. See 346 U. S., at 431, citing 15 U. S. C. § 77v(a).
There is no sound basis for construing the prohibition in § 14 on waiving “compliance with any provision” of the Securities Act to apply to these procedural provisions. Although the first three measures do facilitate suits by buyers of securities, the grant of concurrent jurisdiction constitutes explicit authorization for complainants to waive those protections by filing suit in state court without possibility of removal to federal court. These measures, moreover, are present in other federal statutes which have not been interpreted to prohibit enforcement of predispute agreements to arbitrate. See Shear son/American Express Inc. v. McMahon, supra (construing the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; see 15 U. S. C. § 78aa); ibid, (construing the RICO statutes; see 18 U. S. C. § 1965); Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., supra (construing the antitrust laws; see 15 U. S. C. § 15).
Indeed, in McMahon the Court declined to read § 29(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the language of which is in every respect the same as that in § 14 of the 1933 Act, compare 15 U. S. C. § 77v(a) with § 78aa, to prohibit enforcement of predispute agreements to arbitrate. The only conceivable distinction in this regard between the Securities Act and the Securities Exchange Act is that the former statute allows concurrent federal-state jurisdiction over causes of action and the latter statute provides for exclusive federal jurisdiction. But even if this distinction were thought to make any difference at all, it would suggest that arbitration agreements, which are “in effect, a specialized kind of forum-selection clause,” Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U. S. 506, 519 (1974), should not be prohibited under the Securities Act, since they, like the provision for concurrent jurisdiction, serve to advance the objective of allowing buyers of securities a broader right to select the forum for resolving disputes, whether it be judicial or otherwise. And in McMahon we explained at length why we rejected the Wilko Court’s aversion to arbitration as a forum for resolving disputes over securities transactions, especially in light of the relatively recent expansion of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s authority to oversee and to regulate those arbitration procedures. 482 U. S., at 231-234. We need not repeat those arguments here.
Finally, in McMahon we stressed the strong language of the Arbitration Act, which declares as a matter of federal law that arbitration agreements “shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” 9 U. S. C. §2. Under that statute, the party opposing arbitration carries the burden of showing that Congress intended in a separate statute to preclude a waiver of judicial remedies, or that such a waiver of judicial remedies inherently conflicts with the underlying purposes of that other statute. 482 U. S., at 226-227. But as Justice Frankfurter said in dissent in Wilko, so it is true in this case: “There is nothing in the record before us, nor in the facts of which we can take judicial notice, to indicate that the arbitral system . . . would not afford the plaintiff the rights to which he is entitled.” 346 U. S., at 439. Petitioners have not carried their burden of showing that arbitration agreements are not enforceable under the Securities Act.
The language quoted above from § 2 of the Arbitration Act also allows the courts to give relief where the party opposing arbitration presents “well-supported claims that the agreement to arbitrate resulted from the sort of fraud or overwhelming economic power that would provide grounds ‘for the revocation of any contract.’” Mitsubishi, 473 U. S., at 627. This avenue of relief is in harmony with the Securities Act’s concern to protect buyers of securities by removing “the disadvantages under which buyers labor” in their dealings with sellers. Wilko, supra, at 435. Although petitioners suggest that the agreement to arbitrate here was adhesive in nature, the record contains no factual showing sufficient to support that suggestion.
Ill
We do not suggest that the Court of Appeals on its own authority should have taken the step of renouncing Wilko. If a precedent of this Court has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of Appeals should follow the case which directly controls, leaving to this Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions. We now conclude that Wilko was incorrectly decided and is inconsistent with the prevailing uniform construction of other federal statutes governing arbitration agreements in the setting of business transactions. Although we are normally and properly reluctant to overturn our decisions construing statutes, we have done so to achieve a uniform interpretation of similar statutory language, Commissioner v. Estate of Church, 335 U. S. 632, 649-650 (1949), and to correct a seriously erroneous interpretation of statutory language that would undermine congressional policy as expressed in other legislation, see, e. g., Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerks, 398 U. S. 235, 240-241 (1970) (overruling Sinclair Refining Co. v. Atkinson, 370 U. S. 195 (1962)). Both purposes would be served here by overruling the Wilko decision.
It also would be undesirable for the decisions in Wilko and McMahon to continue to exist side by side. Their inconsistency is at odds with the principle that the 1933 and 1934 Acts should be construed harmoniously because they “constitute interrelated components of the federal regulatory scheme governing transactions in securities.” Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U. S. 185, 206 (1976). In this case, for example, petitioners’ claims under the 1934 Act were subjected to arbitration, while their claim under the 1933 Act was not permitted to go to arbitration, but was required to proceed in court. That result makes little sense for similar claims, based on similar facts, which are supposed to arise within a single federal regulatory scheme. In addition, the inconsistency between Wilko and McMahon undermines the essential rationale for a harmonious construction of the two statutes, which is to discourage litigants from manipulating their allegations merely to cast their claims under one of the securities laws rather than another. For all of these reasons, therefore, we overrule the decision in Wilko.
Petitioners argue finally that if the Court overrules Wilko, it should not apply its ruling retroactively to the facts of this case. We disagree. The general rule of long standing is that the law announced in the Court’s decision controls the case at bar. See, e. g., Saint Francis College v. Al-Khazraji, 481 U. S. 604, 608 (1987); United States v. Schooner Peggy, 1 Cranch 103, 109 (1801). In some civil cases, the Court has restricted its rulings to have prospective application only, where specific circumstances are present. Chevron Oil v. Huson, 404 U. S. 97, 106-107 (1971). Under the Chevron approach, the customary rule of retroactive application is appropriate here. Although our decision to overrule Wilko establishes a new principle of law for arbitration agreements under the Securities Act, this ruling furthers the purposes and effect of the Arbitration Act without undermining those of the Securities Act. Today’s ruling, moreover, does not produce “substantial inequitable results,” 404 U. S., at 107, for petitioners do not make any serious allegation that they agreed to arbitrate future disputes relating to their investment contracts in reliance on Wilko’s holding that such agreements would be held unenforceable by the courts. Our conclusion is reinforced by our assessment that resort to the arbitration process does not inherently undermine any of the substantive rights afforded to petitioners under the Securities Act.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
The Court carefully limited its holding to apply only to arbitration agreements which are made “prior to the existence of a controversy.” 346 U. S., at 438; see id., at 438-439 (Jackson, J., concurring). In contrast, “courts uniformly have concluded that Wilko does not apply to the submission to arbitration of existing disputes.” Shearson/American Express Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U. S. 220, 233 (1987).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioners, like the appellee and his class in Johnson v. Robison, ante, p. 361, are Class I-O conscientious objectors who, upon completion of alternative civilian service pursuant to § 6 (j) of the Military Selective Service Act, 50 U. S. C. App. § 456 (j), and the governing regulations of the Selective Service System, 32 CFR, Part 1660, applied for educational benefits provided by the Veterans' Readjustment Benefits Act of 1966. The Veterans’ Administration denied petitioners’ application for the reasons upon which appellee Robison’s request was denied, i. e., because a Class I-O conscientious objector who has performed alternative civilian service does not qualify under 38 U. S. C. § 1652 (a)(1) as a "veteran who . . . served on active duty” (defined in 38 U. S. C. § 101 (21) as “full-time duty in the Armed Forces”), and is therefore not an “eligible veteran” entitled under 38 U. S. C. § 1661 (a) to veterans’ educational benefits provided by the Veterans’ Readjustment Benefits Act of 1966.
Alleging that those sections of the 1966 Act discriminate against conscientious objectors in violation of the Fifth Amendment, and infringe the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, petitioners filed two actions seeking declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus relief and requesting the convening of a three-judge district court. The District Court consolidated the two cases and granted the Government’s motion to dismiss on the grounds that “plaintiffs’ requests for affirmative relief are not within the jurisdiction of this Court due to the mandate of 38 U. S. C. § 211 (a) ... [and] the plaintiffs’ challenge . . . based on alleged violations of the Fifth and First Amendments to the United States Constitution are [sic] insubstantial and without merit.” 339 F. Supp. 913, 916 (ND Cal. 1972). Notwithstanding the District Court’s dismissal of petitioners’ constitutional claims on the ground of insubstantiality, the Court of Appeals, as we read that court’s opinion, construed the order of dismissal as based solely upon the jurisdictional bar of §211 (a), and affirmed the District Court on that ground. 467 F. 2d 479 (1972). We granted certiorari and set the case for oral argument with Johnson v. Robison, ante, p. 361. 411 U. S. 981 (1973).
We have held today in Johnson v. Robison that § 211 (a) does not bar judicial consideration of constitutional challenges to veterans’ benefits legislation. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with our opinion hi Johnson v. Robison.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Douglas concurs in the result for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Johnson v. Robison, ante, p. 386.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented in this case is whether the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment bars the prosecution of an Indian in a federal district court under the Major Crimes Act, 18 U. S. C. § 1153, when he has previously been convicted in a tribal court of a lesser included offense arising out of the same incident.
I
On October 16, 1974, the respondent, a member of the Navajo Tribe, was arrested by a tribal police officer at the Bureau of Indian Affairs High School in Many Farms, Ariz., on the Navajo Indian Reservation. He was taken to the tribal jail in Chinle, Ariz., and charged with disorderly conduct, in violation of Title 17, § 351, of the Navajo Tribal Code (1969). On October 18, two days after his arrest, the respondent pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct and a further charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, in violation of Title 17, § 321, of the Navajo Tribal Code (1969). He was sentenced to 15 days in jail or a fine of $30 on the first charge and to 60 days in jail (to be served concurrently with the other jail term) or a fine of $120 on the second.
Over a year later, on November 19, 1975, an indictment charging the respondent with statutory rape was returned by a grand jury in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. The respondent moved to dismiss this indictment, claiming that since the tribal offense of contributing to the delinquency of a minor was a lesser included offense of statutory rape, the proceedings that had taken place in the Tribal Court barred a subsequent federal prosecution. See Brown v. Ohio, 432 U. S. 161. The District Court, rejecting the prosecutor’s argument that “there is not an identity of sovereignties between the Navajo Tribal Courts and the courts of the United States,” dismissed the indictment. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment of dismissal, concluding that since “Indian tribal courts and United States district courts are not arms of separate sovereigns,” the Double Jeopardy Clause barred the respondent’s trial. 545 F. 2d 1255, 1258. We granted certiorari to resolve an intercircuit conflict. 434 U. S. 816.
II
In Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U. S. 121, and Abbate v. United States, 359 U. S. 187, this Court reaffirmed the well-established principle that a federal prosecution does not bar a subsequent state prosecution of the same person for the same acts, and. a state prosecution does not bar a federal one. The basis for this doctrine is that prosecutions under the laws of separate sovereigns do not, in the language of the Fifth Amendment, “subject [the defendant] for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy”:
“An offence, in its legal signification, means the transgression of a law.... Every citizen of the United States is also a citizen of a State or territory. He may be said to owe allegiance to two sovereigns, and may be liable to punishment for an infraction of the laws of either. The same act may be an offense or transgression of the laws of both.... That either or both may (if they see fit) punish such an offender, cannot be doubted. Yet it cannot be truly averred that the offender has been twice punished for the same offence; but only that by one act he has committed two offences, for each of which he is justly punishable.” Moore v. Illinois, 14 How. 13, 19-20.
It was noted in Abbate, supra, at 195, that the “undesirable consequences” that would result from the imposition of a double jeopardy bar in such circumstances further support the “dual sovereignty” concept. Prosecution by one sovereign for a relatively minor offense might bar prosecution by the other for a much graver one, thus effectively depriving the latter of the right to enforce its own laws. While, the Court said, conflict might be eliminated by making federal jurisdiction exclusive where it exists, such a “marked change in the distribution of powers to administer criminal justice” would not be desirable. Ibid.
The “dual sovereignty” concept does not apply, however, in every instance where successive cases are brought by nominally different prosecuting entities. Grafton v. United States, 206 U. S. 333, held that a soldier who had been acquitted of murder by a federal court-martial could not be retried for the same offense by a territorial court in the Philippines. And Puerto Rico v. Shell Co., 302 U. S. 253, 264-266, reiterated that successive prosecutions by federal and territorial courts are impermissible because such courts are “creations emanating from the same sovereignty.” Similarly, in Waller v. Florida, 397 U. S. 387, we held that a city and the State of which it is a political subdivision could not bring successive prosecutions for unlawful conduct growing out of the same episode, despite the fact that state law treated the two- as separate sovereignties.
The respondent contends, and the Court of Appeals held, that the “dual sovereignty” concept should not apply to successive prosecutions by an Indian tribe and the United States because the Indian tribes are not themselves sovereigns, but derive their power to punish crimes from the Federal Government. This argument relies on the undisputed fact that Congress has plenary authority to legislate for the Indian tribes in all matters, including their form of government., Winton v. Amos, 255 U. S. 373, 391-392; In re Heff, 197 U. S. 488, 498-499; Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U. S. 553; Talton v. Mayes, 163 U. S. 376, 384. Because o-f this all-encompassing federal power, the respondent argues that the tribes are merely “arms of the federal government” which, in the words of his brief, “owe their existence and vitality solely to the political department of the federal government.”
We think that the respondent and the Court of Appeals, in relying on federal control over Indian tribes, have misconceived the distinction between those cases in which the “dual sovereignty” concept is applicable and those in which it is not. It is true that Territories are subject to the ultimate control of Congress, and cities to the control of the State which created them. But that fact was not relied upon as the basis for the decisions in Grafton, Shell Co., and Waller. What differentiated those cases from Bartkus and Abbate was not the extent of control exercised by one prosecuting authority over the other but rather the ultimate source of the power under which the respective prosecutions were undertaken.
Bartkus and Abbate rest on the basic structure of our federal system, in which States and the National Government are separate political communities. State and Federal Governments “[derive] power from different sources,” each from the organic law that established it. United States v. Lanza, 260 U. S. 377, 382. Each has the power, inherent in any sovereign, independently to determine what shall be an offense against its authority and to punish such offenses, and in doing, so each “is exercising its own sovereignty, not that of the other.” Ibid. And while the States, as well as the Federal Government, are subject to the overriding requirements of the Federal Constitution, and the Supremacy Clause gives Congress within its sphere the power to enact laws superseding conflicting laws of the States, this degree of federal control over the exercise of state governmental power does not detract from the fact that it is a State’s own sovereignty which is the origin of its power.
By contrast, cities are not sovereign entities. “Rather, they have been traditionally regarded as subordinate governmental instrumentalities created by the State to assist in the carrying out of state governmental functions.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 575. A city is nothing more than “an agency of the State.” Williams v. Eggleston, 170 U. S. 304, 310. Any power it has to define and punish crimes exists only because such power has been granted by the State; the power “derive [s]... from the source of [its] creation.” Mount Pleasant v. Beckwith, 100 U. S. 514, 524. As we said in Waller v. Florida, supra, at 393, “the judicial power to try petitioner... in municipal court springs from the same organic law that created the state court of general jurisdiction.”
Similarly, a territorial government is entirely the creation of Congress, “and its judicial tribunals exert all their powers by authority of the United States.” Grafton v. United States, supra, at 354; see Cincinnati Soap Co. v. United States, 301 U. S. 308, 317; United States v. Kagama, 118 U. S. 375, 380; American Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 511, 542. When a territorial government enacts and enforces criminal laws to govern its inhabitants, it is not acting as an independent political community like a State, but as “an agency of the federal government.” Domenech v. National City Bank, 294 U. S. 199, 204-205.
Thus, in a federal Territory and the Nation, as in a city and a State, “[t]here is but one system of government, or of laws operating within [its] limits.” Benner v. Porter, 9 How. 235, 242. City and State, or Territory and Nation, are not two separate sovereigns to whom the citizen owes separate allegiance in any meaningful sense, but one alone. And the “dual sovereignty” concept of Bartkus and Abbate does not permit a single sovereign to impose multiple punishment for a single offense merely by the expedient of establishing multiple political subdivisions with the power to punish crimes.
Ill
It is undisputed that Indian tribes have power to enforce their criminal laws against tribe members. Although physically within the territory of the United States and subject to ultimate federal control, they nonetheless remain “a separate people, with the power of regulating their internal and social relations.” United States v. Kagama, supra, at 381-382; Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Pet. 1, 16. Their right oh internal self-government includes the right to prescribe laws applicable to tribe members and to enforce those laws by criminal sanctions. United States v. Antelope, 430 U. S. 641, 643 n. 2; Talton v. Mayes, 163 U. S., at 380; Ex parte Crow Dog, 109 U. S. 656, 571-572; see 18 U. S. C. § 1152 (1976 ed.), infra, n. 21. As discussed above in Part II, the controlling question in this case is the source of this power to punish tribal offenders: Is it a part of inherent tribal sovereignty, or an aspect of the sovereignty of the Federal Government which has been delegated to the tribes by Congress?
A
The powers of Indian tribes are, in general, “inherent powers of a limited sovereignty which has never been extinguished.” F. Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law 122 (1945) (emphasis in original). Before the coming of the Europeans, the tribes were self-governing sovereign political communities. See McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm’n, 411 U. S. 164, 172. Like all sovereign bodies, they then had the inherent power to prescribe laws for their members and to punish infractions of those laws.
Indian tribes are, of course, no longer “possessed of the full attributes of sovereignty.” United States v. Kagama, supra, at 381. Their incorporation within the territory of the United States, and their acceptance of its protection, necessarily divested them of some aspects of the sovereignty which they had previously exercised. By specific treaty provision they yielded up other sovereign powers; by statute, in the exercise of its plenary control, Congress has removed still others.
But our cases recognize that the Indian tribes have not given up their full sovereignty. We have recently said: “Indian tribes are unique aggregations possessing attributes of sovereignty over both their members and their territory.... [They] are a good deal more than 'private, voluntary organizations.’ ” United States v. Mazurie, 419 U. S. 544, 557; see also Turner v. United States, 248 U. S. 354, 354-355; Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, supra, at 16-17. The sovereignty that the Indian tribes retain is of a unique and limited character. It exists only at the sufferance of Congress and is subject to complete defeasance. But until Congress acts, the tribes retain their existing sovereign powers. In sum, Indian tribes still possess those aspects of sovereignty not withdrawn by treaty or statute, or by implication as a necessary result of their dependent status. See Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, ante, p. 191.
B
It is evident that the sovereign power to punish tribal offenders has never been given up by the Navajo Tribe and that tribal exercise of that power today is therefore the continued exercise of retained tribal sovereignty. Although both of the treaties executed by the Tribe with the United States provided for punishment by the United States of Navajos who commit crimes against non-Indians, nothing in either of them deprived the Tribe of its own jurisdiction to charge, try, and punish members of the Tribe for violations of tribal law. On the contrary, we have said that “[ijmplicit in these treaty terms... was the understanding that the internal affairs of the Indians remained exclusively within the jurisdiction of whatever tribal government existed.” Williams v. Lee, 358 U. S. 217, 221-222; see also Warren Trading Post v. Tax Comm’n, 380 U. S. 685.
Similarly, statutes establishing federal criminal jurisdiction over crimes involving Indians have recognized an Indian tribe’s jurisdiction over its members. The first Indian Trade and Intercourse Act, Act of July 22, 1790, § 5, 1 Stat. 138, provided only that the Federal Government would punish offenses committed against Indians by “any citizen or inhabitant of the United States”; it did not mention crimes committed by Indians. In 1817 federal criminal jurisdiction was extended to crimes committed within the Indian country by “any Indian, or other person or persons,” but “any offence committed by one Indian against another, within any Indian boundary” was excluded. Act of Mar. 3, 1817, ch. 92, 3 Stat. 383. In the Indian Trade and Intercourse Act of 1834, § 25, 4 Stat. 733, Congress enacted the direct progenitor of the General Crimes Act, now 18 U. S. C. § 1152 (1976 ed.), which makes federal enclave criminal law generally applicable to crimes in “Indian country.” In this statute Congress carried forward the intra-Indian offense exception because “the tribes have exclusive jurisdiction” of such offenses and “we can [not] with any justice or propriety extend our laws to” them. H. It. Rep. No. 474, 23d Cong., 1st Sess., 13 (1834). And in 1854 Congress expressly recognized the jurisdiction of tribal courts when it added another exception to the General Crimes Act, providing that federal courts would not try an Indian “who has been punished by the local law of the tribe.” Act of Mar. 27,1854, § 3,10 Stat. 270. Thus, far from depriving Indian tribes of their sovereign power to punish offenses against tribal law by members of a tribe, Congress has repeatedly recognized that power and declined to disturb it.
Moreover, the sovereign power of a tribe to prosecute its members for tribal offenses clearly does not fall within that part of sovereignty which the Indians implicitly lost by virtue of their dependent status. The areas in which such implicit divestiture of sovereignty has been held to have occurred are those involving the relations between an Indian tribe and nonmembers of the tribe. Thus, Indian tribes can no longer freely alienate to non-Indians the land they occupy. Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 414 U. S. 661, 667-668; Johnson v. M’Intosh, 8 Wheat. 543, 574. They cannot enter into direct commercial or governmental relations with foreign nations. Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515, 559; Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Pet., at 17-18; Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 147 (Johnson, J., concurring). And, as we have recently held, they cannot try nonmembers in tribal courts. Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, ante, p. 191.
These limitations rest on the fact that the dependent status of Indian tribes within our territorial jurisdiction is necessarily inconsistent with their freedom independently to determine their external relations. But the powers of self-government, including the power to prescribe and enforce internal criminal laws, are of a different type. They involve only the relations among members of a tribe. Thus, they are not such powers as would necessarily be lost by virtue of a tribe’s dependent status. “[T]he settled doctrine of the law of nations is, that a weaker power does not surrender its independence — its right to self government, by associating with a stronger, and taking its protection.” Worcester v. Georgia, supra, at 560-561.
C
That the Navajo Tribe’s power to punish offenses against tribal law committed by its members is an aspect of its retained sovereignty is further supported by the absence of any federal grant of such power. If Navajo self-government were merely the exercise of delegated federal sovereignty, such a delegation should logically appear somewhere. But no provision in the relevant treaties or statutes confers the right of self-government in general, or the power to punish crimes in particular, upon the Tribe.
It is true that in the exercise of the powers of self-government, as in all other matters, the Navajo Tribe, like all Indian tribes, remains subject to ultimate federal control. Thus, before the Navajo Tribal Council created the present Tribal Code and tribal courts, the Bureau of Indian Affairs established a Code of Indian Tribal Offenses and a Court of Indian Offenses for the reservation. See 25 CFR Part 11 (1977); cf. 25 U. S. (¡3. § 1311. Pursuant to federal regulations, the present Tribal Code was approved by the Secretary of the Interior before becoming effective. See 25 CFR § 11.1 (e) (1977). Moreover, the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, § 16, 48 Stat. 987, 25 U. S. C. § 476, and the Act of Apr. 19, 1950, § 6, 64 Stat. 46, 25 U. S. C. § 636, each authorized the Tribe to adopt a constitution for self-government. And the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, 82 Stat. 77, 25 U. S. C. § 1302, made most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights applicable to the Indian tribes and limited the punishment tribal courts could impose to imprisonment for six months, or a fine of $500, or both.
But none of these laws created the Indians’ power to* govern themselves and their right to punish crimes committed by tribal offenders. Indeed, the Wheeler-Howard Act and the Navajo-Hopi Rehabilitation Act both recognized that Indian tribes already had such power under “existing law.” See Powers of Indian Tribes, 55 I. D. 14 (1934). That Congress has in certain ways regulated the manner and extent of the tribal power of self-government does not mean that Congress is the source of that power.
In sum, the power to punish offenses against tribal law committed by Tribe members, which was part of the Navajos’ primeval sovereignty, has never been taken away from them, either explicitly or implicitly, and is attributable in no way to any delegation to them of federal authority. It follows that when the Navajo Tribe exercises this power, it does so as part of its retained sovereignty and not as an arm of the Federal Government
D
The conclusion that an Indian tribe’s power to punish tribal offenders is part of its own retained sovereignty is clearly reflected in a case decided by this Court more than 80 years ago, Talton v. Mayes, 163 U. S. 376. There a Cherokee Indian charged with murdering another Cherokee in the Indian Territory claimed that his indictment by the Tribe was defective under the Grand Jury Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In holding that the Fifth Amendment did not apply to tribal prosecutions, the Court stated:
“The case... depends upon whether the powers of local government exercised by the Cherokee nation are Federal powers created by and springing from the Constitution of the United States, and hence controlled by the Fifth Amendment to that Constitution, or whether they are local powers not created by the Constitution, although subject to its general provisions and the paramount authority of Congress. The repeated adjudications of this Court have long since answered the former question in the negative....
“True it is that in many adjudications of this court the fact has been fully recognized, that although possessed of these attributes of local self government, when exercising their tribal functions, all such rights are subject to the supreme legislative authority of the United States.... But the existence of the right in Congress to regulate the manner in which the local powers of the Cherokee nation shall be exercised does not render such local powers Federal powers arising from and created by the Constitution of the United States.” Id., at 382-384.
The relevance of Talton v. Mayes to the present case is clear. The Court there held that when an Indian tribe criminally punishes a tribe member for violating tribal law, the tribe acts as an independent sovereign, and not as an arm of the Federal Government. Since tribal and federal prosecutions are brought by separate sovereigns, they are not “for the same offence,” and the Double Jeopardy Clause thus does not bar one when the other has occurred.
IV
The respondent contends that, despite the fact that successive tribal and federal prosecutions are not “for the same offence,” the “dual sovereignty” concept should be limited to successive state and federal prosecutions. But we cannot accept so restrictive a view of that concept, a view which, as has been noted, would require disregard of the very words of the Double Jeopardy Clause. Moreover, the same sort of “undesirable consequences” identified in Abbate could occur if successive tribal and federal prosecutions were barred despite the fact that tribal and federal courts are arms of separate sovereigns. Tribal courts can impose m> punishment in excess of six months’ imprisonment or a $500 fine. 25 U. S. C. § 1302 (7). On the other hand, federal jurisdiction over crimes committed by Indians includes many major offenses. 18 U. S. C. § 1153 (1976 ed.). Thus, when both a federal prosecution for a major crime and a tribal prosecution for a lesser included offense are possible, the defendant will often face the potential of a mild tribal punishment and a federal punishment of substantial severity. Indeed, the respondent in the present case faced the possibility of a federal sentence of 15 years in prison, but received a tribal sentence of no more than 75 days and a small fine. In such a case, the prospect of avoiding more severe federal punishment would surely motivate-a member of a tribe charged with the commission of an offense to seek to stand trial first in a tribal court. Were the tribal prosecution held to bar the federal one, important federal interests in the prosecution of major offenses on Indian reservations would be frustrated.
This problem would, of course, be solved if Congress, in the exercise of its plenary power over the tribes, chose to- deprive them of criminal jurisdiction altogether. But such a fundamental abridgment of the powers of Indian tribes- might be thought as undesirable as the federal pre-emption of state criminal jurisdiction that would have avoided conflict in Bartkus and Abbate. The Indian tribes are “distinct political communities” with their own mores and laws, Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet., at 557; The Kansas Indians, 5 Wall. 737, 756, which can be enforced by formal criminal proceedings in tribal courts as well as by less formal means. They have a significant interest in maintaining orderly relations among their members and in preserving tribal customs and traditions, apart from the federal interest in law and order on the reservation. Tribal laws and procedures are often influenced by tribal custom and can differ greatly from our own. See Ex parte Crow Dog, 109 U. S., at 571.
Thus, tribal courts are important mechanisms for protecting significant tribal interests. Federal pre-emption of a tribe’s jurisdiction to punish its members for infractions of tribal law would detect substantially from tribal self-government, just as federal pre-emption of state criminal jurisdiction would trench upon important state interests. Thus, just as in Bartkus and Abbate, there are persuasive reasons to reject the respondent’s argument that we should arbitrarily ignore the settled “dual sovereignty” concept as it applies to successive tribal and federal prosecutions.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Brennan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The record does not make clear the details of the incident that led to the respondent’s arrest. After the bringing of the federal indictment an evidentiary hearing was held on the respondent’s motion to suppress statements he had made to police officers. This hearing revealed only that the respondent had been intoxicated at the time of his arrest; that his clothing had been disheveled and he had had a bloodstain on his face; that the incident had involved' a Navajo girl; and that the respondent claimed that he had been trying to help the girl, who had been attacked by several other boys.
The record does not reveal how the sentence of the Navajo Tribal Court was carried out.
The indictment charged that “[ojn or about the 16th day of October, 1974, in the District of Arizona, on and within the Navajo Indian Reservation, Indian Country, ANTHONY ROBERT WHEELER, an Indian male, did carnally know a female Indian... not his wife, who had not then attained the age of sixteen years but was fifteen years of age. In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1153 and 2032.”
At the time of the indictment, 18 U. S. C. § 1153 provided in relevant part:
“Any Indian who commits against the person or property of another Indian or other person any of the following offenses, namely,... carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife, who has not attained the age of sixteen years,... within the Indian country, shall be subject to the same laws and penalties as all other persons committing any of the above offenses, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.”
The Major Crimes Act has since been amended in respects not relevant here. Indian Crimes Act of 1976, § 2, 90 Stat. 585.
Title 18 U. S. C. § 2032 (1976 ed.), applicable within areas of exclusive federal jurisdiction, punishes carnal knowledge of any female under 16 years of age who is not the defendant’s wife by imprisonment for up to 15 years.-
The holding of the District Court and the Court of Appeals that the tribal offense of contributing toi the delinquency of a minor was included within the federal offense of statutory rape is not challenged here by the Government.
The decision of the District Court is unreported.
In a later case, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar successive tribal and federal prosecutions for the same offense, expressly rejecting the view of the Ninth Circuit in the present case. United States v. Walking Crow, 560 F. 2d 386. See also United States v. Elk, 561 F. 2d 133 (CA8); United States v. Kills Plenty, 466 F. 2d 240, 243 n.3 (CA8).
Although the problems arising from concurrent federal and state criminal jurisdiction had been noted earlier, see Houston v. Moore, 5 Wheat. 1, the Court did not clearly address the issue until Fox v. Ohio, 5 How. 410, United States v. Marigold, 9 How. 560, and Moore v. Illinois, 14 How. 13, in the mid-19th century. Those cases upheld the power of States and the Federal Government to make the same act criminal; in each case the possibility of consecutive state and federal prosecutions was raised as an objection to concurrent jurisdiction, and was rejected by the Court on the ground that such multiple prosecutions, if they occurred, would not constitute double jeopardy. The first case in which actual multiple prosecutions were upheld was United States v. Lanza, 260 U. S. 377, involving a prosecution for violation of the Volstead Act, ch. 85, 41 Stat. 305, after a conviction for criminal violation of liquor laws of the State of Washington.
In Abbate itself the petitioners had received prison terms of three months on their state convictions, but faced up to five years’ imprisonment on the federal charge. 359 U. S., at 195. And in Bartkus the Court referred to Screws v. United States, 325 U. S. 91, in which the same facts could give rise to a federal prosecution under what are now 18 U. S. C. §§ 242 and 371 (1976 ed.) (which then carried maximum penalties of one and two years’ imprisonment) and a state prosecution for murder, a capital offense. “Were the federal prosecution of a comparatively minor offense to prevent state prosecution of so grave an infraction of state law, the result would be a shocking and untoward deprivation of the historic right and obligation of the States to maintain peace and order within their confines.” Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U. S. 121, 137.
The prohibition against double jeopardy had been made applicable to the Philippines by Act of Congress. Act of July 1, 1902, § 5, 32 Stat. 692. In a previous case, the Court had held it unnecessary to decide whether the Double Jeopardy Clause would have applied within the Philippines of its own force in the absence of this statute. Kepner v. United States, 195 U. S. 100, 124-125.
Colliflower v. Garland, 342 F. 2d 369, 379 (CA9).
Binns v. United States, 194 U. S. 486, 491; De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 1, 196-197; Mormon Church v. United States, 136 U. S. 1, 42; Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U. S. 15, 44-45.
Trenton v. New Jersey, 262 U. S. 182, 187; Hunter v. Pittsburgh, 207 U. S. 161, 178-179; Williams v. Eggleston, 170 U. S. 304, 310; Mount Pleasant v. Beckwith, 100 U. S. 514, 529; see 2 E. McQuillin, Law of Municipal Corporations § 4.03 (3d ed. 1966).
Indeed, in the Shell Co. case the Court noted that Congress had given Puerto Rico “an autonomy similar to that of the states....” 302 U. S, at 262.
Cf. United States v. Lanza, 260 U. S., at 379-382, holding that a State’s power to enact prohibition laws did not derive from the Eighteenth Amendment’s provision that Congress and the States should have concurrent jurisdiction in that area, but rather from the State’s inherent sovereignty.
See also Trenton v. New Jersey, supra, at 185-186; Hunter v. Pittsburgh, supra, at 178; Worcester v. Street R. Co., 196 U. S. 539, 548; Barnes v. District of Columbia, 91 U. S. 540, 544.
Indeed, the relationship of a Territory to the Federal Government has been accurately compared to the relationship between a city and a State. Dorr v. United, States, 195 U. S. 138, 147-148, quoting T. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law 164-165 (1880); see National Bank v. County of Yankton, 101 U. S. 129, 133.
Cf. Gonzales v. Williams, 192 U. S. 1, 13; American Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 511, 542.
Thus, unless limited by treaty or statute, a tribe has the power to determine tribe membership, Cherokee Intermarriage Cases, 203 U. S. 76; Roff v. Burney, 168 U. S. 218, 222-223; to regulate domestic relations among tribe members, Fisher v. District Court, 424 U. S. 382; cf. United States v. Quiver, 241 U. S. 602; and to prescribe rules for the inheritance of property. Jones v. Meehan, 175 U. S. 1, 29; United States ex rel. Mackey v. Coxe, 18 How. 100.
See infra, at 326.
The first treaty was signed at Canyon de Chelly in 1849, and ratified by Congress in 1850. 9 Stat. 974. The second treaty was signed and ratified in 1868. 15 Stat. 667.
Title 18 U. S. C. § 1152 (1976 ed.) now provides:
“Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, the general laws of the United States as to the punishment of offenses committed in any place within the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, except the District of Columbia, shall extend to the Indian country.
"This section shall not extend to offenses committed by one Indian against the person or property of another Indian, nor to, any Indian committing any offense in the Indian country who has been punished by the local law of the tribe, or to any case where, by treaty stipulation, the exclusive jurisdiction over such offenses is or may be secured to' the Indian tribes respectively.”
Despite the statute's broad language, it does not apply to crimes committed by non-Indians against non-Indians, which are subject to state jurisdiction. United States v. McBratney, 104 U. S. 621.
This statute is not applicable to the present case. The Major Crimes Act, under which the instant prosecution was brought, was enacted in 1885. Act of Mar. 3, 1885, § 9, 23 Stat. 385. It does not contain any exception for Indians punished under tribal law. We need not decide whether this “ 'carefully limited intrusion of federal power into the otherwise exclusive jurisdiction of the Indian tribes' to punish Indians for crimes committed on Indian land,’ ” United States v. Antelope, 430 U. S. 641, 643 n. 1, deprives a tribal court of jurisdiction over the enumerated offenses, since the crimes to which the respondent pleaded guilty in the Navajo Tribal Court are not among those enumerated in the Major Crimes Act. Cf. Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, ante, at 203-204, n. 14.
See S. Rep. No.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Petitioners were ordered to testify before the Illinois Crime Investigating Commission under a grant of immunity conferred pursuant to Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 38, § 203— 14 (1969). The occasion for granting the writ in this case was to consider whether Illinois must demonstrate to petitioners, prior to an adjudication for contempt for refusal to answer the Commission’s questions, that immunity as broad in scope as the protection of the privilege against self-incrimination is available and applicable to them. 401 U. S. 935 (1971). The writ was granted in light of petitioners’ claim that the statute did not provide complete transactional immunity. On the same day that the writ was granted, probable jurisdiction was noted in Zicarelli v. New Jersey State Commission of Investigation, 401 U. S. 933 (1971), to resolve the question whether a State can compel testimony from an unwilling witness, who invokes the privilege against self-incrimination, by granting immunity from use and derivative use of the compelled testimony, or whether transactional immunity is required.
We held today in Kastigar- v. United States, ante, p. 441, and in Zicarelli v. New Jersey State Commission of Investigation, ante, p. 472, that testimony may be compelled from an unwilling witness over a claim of the privilege against self-incrimination by a grant of use and derivative use immunity. The premise of petitioners’ arguments is that transactional immunity is required. They say that Illinois failed to demonstrate satisfactorily that transactional immunity was provided, but they do not contend that the Illinois immunity statute affords pro-téetion less comprehensive than use and derivative use immunity. Respondent asserts that the statute affords complete transactional immunity, reflecting a long-standing Illinois policy of providing immunity greater than that required by the United States Constitution. Since neither party contends that the scope of the immunity provided by the Illinois statute falls below the constitutional requirement set forth in Kastigar, we conclude that any uncertainty regarding the scope of protection in excess of the constitutional requirement should best be left to the courts of Illinois. Accordingly, the writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Mr. Justice Douglas dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Kastigar v. United States, ante, p. 462.
Mr. Justice Marshall dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Kastigar v. United States, ante, p. 467.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petitioner became a naturalized citizen on September 10, 1925. The District Court for the Southern District of New York revoked his citizenship on March 9, 1959, in this proceeding brought by the Government under § 340 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. That Act authorizes revocation of naturalized citizenship “on the ground that such order and certificate of naturalization were procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation....” The petitioner, in 1925, swore in his Preliminary Form for Naturalization, in his Petition for Naturalization, and when he appeared before a Naturalization Examiner, that his occupation was “real estate.” The District Court found that this was “willful misrepresentation and fraud” and that “his true occupation was bootlegging,” 171 F. Supp. 10, 16. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed, 275 F. 2d 355. We granted certiorari. 362 U. S. 973.
An earlier denaturalization complaint brought under 8 U. S. C. (1946 ed.) § 738 (a), the predecessor of § 340 (a), was dismissed on the ground that wiretapping may have infected both the Government’s affidavit of good cause and its evidence. United States v. Costello, 145 F. Supp. 892. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed on the ground that the Government should have been afforded an opportunity to show that its evidence either was untainted or was admissible in any event. 247 F. 2d 384. We granted certiorari and reversed, 356 U. S. 256, on a ground not considered below, namely, that the affidavit of good cause, which is a prerequisite to the initiation of denaturalization proceedings under § 340 (a), United States v. Zucca, 351 U. S. 91, was not filed with the complaint. On remand the District Court, declined to enter an order of dismissal “without prejudice” and entered an order which did not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The Government did not appeal from that order but brought this new proceeding under § 340 (a) by affidavit of good cause and complaint filed on May 1, 1958.
The petitioner argues several grounds for reversal of the order revoking his citizenship. He contends: (1) that the finding that he willfully misrepresented his occupation is not supported by clear, unequivocal, and convincing-evidence, the standard of proof required of the Government in these cases; (2) that some of his admissions as to his true occupation at the time of his naturalization were tainted by wiretapping, and thus were not evidence which the District Court might rely upon in reaching its conclusion; (3) that in the circumstances of this case the lapse of 27 years from the time of the petitioner’s naturalization to the time of the filing in 1952 of the Government’s first complaint should be deemed to bar the Government from instituting this proceeding; (4) that the second denaturalization proceeding was barred under Rule 41 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by the failure of the District Court on remand of the first proceeding to specify that the dismissal was “without prejudice” to the filing of a new complaint. '
We find no merit in any of these contentions. The judgment of the Court of Appeals will be affirmed.
I.
The Government carries a heavy burden of proof in a proceeding to divest a naturalized citizen of his citizenship. American citizenship is a precious right. Severe consequences may attend its loss, aggravated when the person has enjoyed his citizenship for many years. See Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U. S. 118, 122-123; Nowak v. United States, 356 U. S. 660, 663. In Chaunt v. United States, 364 U. S. 350, 352-353, we said:
“Acquisition of American citizenship is a solemn affair. Full and truthful response to all relevant questions required by the naturalization procedure is, of course, to be exacted, and temporizing with the truth must be vigorously discouraged. Failure to give frank, honest, and unequivocal answers to the court when one seeks naturalization is a serious matter. Complete replies are essential so that the qualifications of the applicant or his lack of them may be ascertained. Suppressed or concealed facts, if known, might in and of themselves justify denial of citizenship. Or disclosure of the true facts might have led to the discovery of other facts which would justify denial of citizenship.
“On the other hand, in view of the grave consequences to the citizen, naturalization decrees are not lightly to be set aside — the evidence must indeed be 'clear, unequivocal, and convincing’ and not leave 'the issue... in doubt.’ Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U. S. 118, 125, 158; Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U. S. 665, 670. The issue in these cases is so important to the liberty of the citizen that the weight normally given concurrent findings of two lower courts does not preclude reconsideration here...
In 1925 a known bootlegger would probably not have been admitted to citizenship. Decisions before and after the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment held that the applicant who trafficked in the sale, manufacture, or transportation of intoxicating liquors during Prohibition, within the five years preceding his application, did not meet the statutory criterion that an applicant must have behaved as a person “of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same.” Act of 1906, § 4, 34 Stat. 596, 598.
In United States v. De Francis, 60 App. D. C. 207, 208, 50 F. 2d 497, 498, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia stated, “Any person who violates the provisions of the Prohibition Act violates the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and cannot be held to be attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States. Nor can it be said that such a person possesses good moral character.”
In Turlej v. United States, 31 F. 2d 696, 699, it was said, “Few cases can be found where applicants for citizenship have been admitted, if guilty of violating liquor laws within the five years preceding the hearing, and such cases have been severely criticized by the courts. This was true even before the adoption of the Eighteenth Amendment as a part of our national Constitution.” See also In re Trum, 199 F. 361.
In United States v. Villaneuva, 17 F. Supp. 485, 487, the court said, “Courts have quite universally held that violations of prohibition liquor laws, whether national or state, should be taken into consideration in determining questions respecting the good moral character of applicants for citizenship and their attachment to the principles of the Constitution of the United States.”
In United States v. Mirsky, 17 F. 2d 275, a denaturali-zation case, Judge Thacher of the District Court for the Southern District of New York, who had admitted Costello to citizenship less than a year earlier, said: “One who deliberately violates the Eighteenth Amendment of the Constitution cannot be said to be attached to the principle declared by that amendment.” P. 275. “Neither the fact that in this and in other communities there are many citizens who are not attached in thought or deed to the principle embodied in the Constitution by the Eighteenth Amendment, nor the fact that opposition to that principle with a view to removing it from the Constitution is quite generally thought to be the part of good citizenship, can relieve this court of its duty to apply the law as it is now written.” P. 276.
.See also In re Nagy, 3 F. 2d 77; In re Raio, 3 F. 2d 78; In re Phillips, 3 F. 2d 79; In re Bonner, 279 F. 789; Ex parte Elson, 299 F. 352.
Some of these cases turned on a finding of illegal procurement of the certificate because of demonstrated lack of attachment to the principles of the Constitution rather than upon “fraud” under 8 U. S. C. (1946 ed.) § 738 (a). However, the cases demonstrate the materiality of the concealment by the petitioner of his bootlegging if that in fact was his true occupation. Such concealment would support the conclusion that he was an applicant who had “[suppressed or concealed facts... [which]... if known, might in and of themselves justify denial of citizenship.” Chaunt v. United States, supra, at 352-353.
We have examined the record to determine if the evidence leaves “the issue in doubt,” Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U. S. 118, 158, whether the petitioner procured his naturalization by willfully misrepresenting that his occupation was real estate. It does not. However occupation is defined, whether in terms of primary source of income, expenditure of time and effort, or how the petitioner himself viewed his occupation, we reach the conclusion that real estate was not his occupation and that he was in fact a large-scale bootlegger.
The Government built its case on a solid foundation of admissions made by the petitioner in several federal and New York State inquiries beginning in 1938. In that year he admitted to a Special Agent of the Bureau of Internal Revenue that he had engaged in the illicit liquor business from 1923 or 1924 until a year or two before the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment in 1933. In 1939 he testified before a federal grand jury in the Southern District of New York that “I did a little bootlegging..... The last time was around 1926.” In 1943 he testified before a New York County grand jury that he had been in the liquor business in the twenties and had an office at 405 Lexington Avenue, New York City, as early as 1925. He also admitted that he had reported an aggregate income of $305,000 for New York State income tax purposes for the years 1919 to 1932 and that “[m]aybe most of it” was earned in the bootlegging business. Indeed, except for $25,000 realized from a real estate venture to be discussed shortly, there was no evidence of income from any legitimate business. In 1943, in a proceeding before an Official Referee of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, he acknowledged that money he had lent to Arnold Rothstein, prior to the latter’s murder in 1928, might have been derived “from a little bootlegging”; he also admitted that during the Prohibition era his business of smuggling alcoholic liquors into the United States was “profitable.” In 1947 he appeared before the New York State Liquor Authority and testified that from 1923 to 1926 he operated a bootlegging business from 405 Lexington Avenue.
Several of his associates in bootlegging enterprises presented a picture of large-scale operations by the petitioner from early in Prohibition past the time of his application for citizenship. Emanhel Kessler, a big operator apprehended in 1923 and convicted for his activities, financed, about 1921, the petitioner’s purchase of trucks to haul Kessler’s liquors after Kessler landed them on Long Island from boats on the high seas. Kessler “very often” discussed shipments with the petitioner in telephone calls to the Lexington Avenue office. Kessler’s volume at the time was about 3,000 cases per week and he paid the Costello organization approximately $6,000 a week for haulage and storage. Kessler said that before he began serving his sentence “Frank Costello personally asked me... for some money so he could continue on. I think I left him either 100 or 200 cases.”
Frank Kelly, who began bootlegging about 1922, smuggled liquors into the country using a chartered ship which he moored off the Long Island shore. He became associated with the petitioner in 1925 when he was introduced to the petitioner and the petitioner’s Canadian representative, Harry Sausser, at Montauk, Long Island. On this occasion, Sausser negotiated with Kelly for the storage of liquors on Kelly’s boat. Kelly was one of a combine including the petitioner which was indicted in 1925 for conspiracy to violate the liquor laws.
Philip Coffey, also indicted with the petitioner in 1925, was a former Kessler employee. He purchased liquor from the Costello organization at 405 Lexington Avenue as early as 1922 or 1923. He insisted that he did “all my business with Eddie Costello,” the petitioner’s brother, but admitted placing orders with Edward in the petitioner’s presence and discussing purchases with the petitioner. Coffey told of an occasion, which he thought occurred in 1925, when Kelly and the petitioner came by automobile to Montauk Point and Kelly gave him instructions for the removal of liquor from Kelly’s chartered schooner. He said that he was paid for his services at petitioner’s Lexington Avenue office by Edward Ellis, the petitioner’s bookkeeper.
Albert Feldman, another admitted bootlegger, started in 1920 and dealt with both the petitioner and Kessler. He arranged with the petitioner about 1923 at the Lexington Avenue office to have the petitioner haul and store some liquor for him. He also talked with the petitioner regarding its sale. The petitioner told Feldman he had “a customer for the 1000 cases,” that he “could sell them and he would be able to pay me in a few days, as soon as they were delivered, to which I agreed; and Frank said that ‘I’ll be responsible for the money.’ ” In regard to the petitioner’s role in liquor transactions, Feldman said, “everything was Frank Costello. He was the business man. He did all the business.”
Helen L. Sausser, daughter of Harry Sausser, was 18 when she became acquainted with the petitioner in 1925. Sausser was one of the two persons who executed the affidavit attached to the petitioner’s Petition for Naturalization and swore that he also was in the real estate business. The daughter recalled overhearing conversations between petitioner and her father about liquor, and said that her father admitted to her mother that he was engaged in bootlegging. The daughter testified that she had never known her father to engage in the real estate business.
Despite these strong proofs of the falsity of the petitioner’s answers, the petitioner insists that the evidence derived from the Government’s own investigation of his activities in the real estate business should leave us with a troubling doubt whether he stated falsely that he was engaged in that occupation. He had told the New York grand jury in 1943, when asked what “other occupation” besides bootlegging he followed during Prohibition, that “I was doing a little real estate at that time.” The Government put in evidence in this proceeding state corporate records and records from the Registries of Deeds in New York City. These show that petitioner was indeed identified with three corporations empowered to engage in the purchase and sale of real estate. We dismiss two of the corporations, organized in 1926, without further mention beyond the fact that the petitioner testified before the Official Referee in the Appellate Division that his investment of $25,000 or $30,000 in one of them came from “bootlegging or gambling”; there was no evidence of any real estate transactions involving either company. The petitioner’s contention must therefore be tested in the light of the activities of Koslo Realty Corporation. This corporation was organized in December 1924 and at least as early as August 1925 listed its address as the petitioner’s office, 405 Lexington Avenue. A December 1925 document lists the petitioner as president of the company. The only evidence of any investment by the petitioner or profitable transaction in which he engaged before May 1, 1925, when he filed his Petition for Naturalization, concerned a property at West End Avenue and 92d Street, Manhattan, acquired by the corporation in December 1924. The petitioner admitted before the New York County grand jury that his investment in that transaction was from earnings in “gambling or liquor” and claimed that he made a profit of $25,000 on the sale of the property in June 1925. The only other transactions occurred after May 1, 1925. The corporation bought lots in the Bronx in August and October 1925. Some of the lots were improved and all of them were sold in 1926.
These proofs raise no troubling doubt in our minds. They do not support an inference that his occupation was real estate. They show only that the petitioner invested his illicit earnings in real estate transactions with the hope of profit. But he was neither deriving his principal income from Koslo Realty Corporation, spending any appreciable time conducting its affairs, nor making it his central business concern. He himself admitted that he operated his bootlegging enterprises from the Lexington Avenue address. All of the witnesses who testified to activities at that address recounted bootlegging transactions and not one in real estate. And the postman who delivered mail to the office from 1924 to 1926, and saw the petitioner there several times a week, saw neither a secretary nor a typewriter as might be expected in an active real estate business.
The Government’s proofs show not merely that the petitioner’s statements were factually incorrect, but show clearly, unequivocally, and convincingly that the statements were willfully false. The petitioner argues that the evidence is susceptible of the inference that he may have believed that the questions called for the disclosure only of a legal occupation. We may assume that “occupation” can be a word of elusive content in some circumstances, like the question involved in Nowak v. United States, supra, and Maisenberg v. United States, 356 U. S. 670, upon which decisions the petitioner relies. But that argument of ambiguity is farfetched here. No one in the petitioner’s situation could have reasonably thought that the questions could be answered truthfully as they were. It would have been a palpable absurdity for hiiñ to think that his occupation was real estate; he actually had no legal occupation. On this record, his only regular and continuing concern was his bootlegging upon which he depended for his livelihood. He only dabbled in real estate and by his own admission financed even this sideline from “liquor or gambling.” We need not determine whether the evidence supports the conclusion that petitioner organized Koslo Realty Corporation to provide him with a fagade or front to mislead the law-enforcement authorities as to his true occupation, although the appearance of a legitimate occupation was obviously convenient for him and his group. We are convinced, however, that the petitioner counted upon the corporation to give plausibility to his representation as to his occupation when he applied for citizenship.
Our conclusion that his representations were willfully false is reached without reliance upon an inference from the failure of the petitioner to take the stand in this proceeding and testify in his own behalf. The Court of Appeals made some comments as to the significance of the petitioner’s failure to testify, 275 F. 2d, at 358, but we do not read its opinion as basing the affirmance of the District Court’s order upon such an inference. The district judge, whose order the Court of Appeals affirmed, made none. The evidence so strongly supports the District Court’s conclusion that the aid of the inference was unnecessary to buttress it. We therefore find it unnecessary to decide in this case whether an inference may be drawn in a denaturalization proceeding from the failure of the defendant to present himself as a witness.
II.
The contention that illegal wiretapping precluded reliance upon the petitioner’s admissions rests primarily upon interrogations by New York County District Attorney Frank Hogan in 1943 when the petitioner appeared before the New York County grand jury and the Official Referee in the Appellate Division. State officers had a tap on the petitioner’s telephone during several months of 1943. Mr. Hogan made frequent references to the tapped conversations when questioning the petitioner. The petitioner claims that his admissions of bootlegging activities during Prohibition were impelled by the belief that Mr. Hogan had learned from the tapped conversations the information sought by the questions. It is argued that the wiretaps were illegal under our decision in Benanti v. United States, 355 U. S. 96, and that his admissions were therefore to be excluded from evidence as “fruit of the poisonous tree,” on the reasoning in Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U. S. 385, and Nardone v. United States, 308 U. S. 338.
The short answer to this contention is that we conclude from the record that his truthful answers to Mr. Hogan’s questions were not given because he thought that the conversations tapped in 1943 revealed his activities in the Prohibition era, but because he realized that these facts had been known to the authorities for some time. None of Mr. Hogan’s questions even implies that Mr. Hogan gained his information from the 1943 wiretaps. Mr. Hogan had a transcript of the 1939 federal grand jury minutes of the petitioner’s appearance before that body. The petitioner presses no argument in this Court that h'is admissions before that grand jury were infected with wiretapping. Early in Mr. Hogan’s examination, the petitioner admitted that he recalled being questioned before the grand jury in 1939. The questioning at that proceeding had elicited the petitioner’s admission of his bootlegging. Furthermore, his arrest and trial under the 1925 indictment for conspiracy to violate the liquor laws were matters of public record. And in 1938 the petitioner had also admitted his bootlegging to the agent for the Bureau of Internal Revenue. It is plain common sense to conclude that this information, long a matter of official knowledge, not something which he thought might have been disclosed in the 1943 wiretaps, impelled the petitioner to answer Mr. Hogan truthfully.
Moreover, District Attorney Hogan testified in the present proceeding. He expressly disavowed that his questions of the petitioner as to his activities during Prohibition were based on the 1943 wiretaps. He testified that his information was derived from files of the District Attorney’s office, newspaper reports and court records. Although one of the intercepted telephone conversations was between the petitioner and one O’Connell, a code-fendant in the 1925 Prohibition prosecution, Mr. Hogan stated that none of the 1943 wiretaps concerned the petitioner’s bootlegging activities. The 1943 grand jury and Appellate Division investigations were concerned only with the petitioner’s part in the nomination that year of a candidate for Justice of the State Supreme Court.
It is true that the 1943 wiretaps prompted the calling of the petitioner before the county grand jury and the Official Referee. But the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine excludes evidence obtained from or as a consequence of lawless official acts, not evidence obtained from an “independent source.” Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, supra, at 392. We said in Nardone v. United States, 308 U. S. 338, 341, “Sophisticated argument may prove a causal connection between information obtained through illicit wire-tapping and the Government’s proof. As a matter of good sense, however, such connection may have become so attenuated as to dissipate the taint.” We are satisfied that any knowledge in Mr. Hogan’s possession which impelled the petitioner to answer truthfully came from such independent sources and that any connection between the wiretaps and the admissions was too attenuated to require the exclusion of the admissions from evidence.
III.
In contending that lapse of time should be deemed to bar the Government from instituting this proceeding, the petitioner argues that the doctrine of laches should be applied to denaturalization proceedings, and that in any event, the delay of 27 years before bringing denaturalization proceedings denied him due process of law in the circumstances of the case.
It has consistently been held in the lower courts that delay which might support a defense of laches in ordinary equitable proceedings between private litigants will not bar a denaturalization proceeding brought by the Government. See United States v. Ali, 7 F. 2d 728; United States v. Marino, 27 F. Supp. 155; United States v. Cufari, 120 F. Supp. 941, reversed on other grounds, 217 F. 2d 404; United States v. Parisi, 24 F. Supp. 414; United States v. Brass, 37 F. Supp. 698; United States v. Spohrer, 175 F. 440; United States v. Reinsch, 50 F. Supp. 971, reversed on other grounds, 156 F. 2d 678; United States v. Schneiderman, 33 F. Supp. 510, reversed on other grounds, 320 U. S. 118. These cases have applied the principle that laches is not a defense against the sovereign. The reason underlying the principle, said Mr. Justice Story, is “to be found in the great public policy of preserving the public rights, revenues, and property from injury and loss, by the negligence of public officers.” United States v. Hoar, 26 Fed. Cas. 329, 330 (No. 15,373). This Court has consistently. adhered to this principle. See, for example, United States v. Kirkpatrick, 9 Wheat. 720, 735-737; United States v. Knight, 14 Pet. 301, 315; see also United States v. Summerlin, 310 U. S. 414, 416; Board of County Commissioners v. United States, 308 U. S. 343, 351; United States v. Thompson, 98 U. S. 486, 489.
None of the cases in this Court considered the question of the application of laches in a denaturalization proceeding. However, even if we assume the applicability of laches, we think that the petitioner failed to prove both of the elements which are necessary to the recognition of the defense. Laches requires proof of (1) lack of diligence by the party against whom the defense is asserted, and (2) prejudice to the party asserting the defense. See Galliher v. Cadwell, 145 U. S. 368, 372; Southern Pacific Co. v. Bogert, 250 U. S. 483, 488-490; Gardner v. Panama R. Co., 342 U. S. 29, 31.
The petitioner alleges lack of diligence in the Government’s failure to proceed to revoke his certificate within a reasonable time after his arrest and trial under the 1925 indictment for conspiracy to violate the Prohibition laws, or at least within a reasonable time after his admissions before the federal grand jury in 1939. There is no necessity to determine the merits of this argument, for the record is clear that the petitioner was not prejudiced by the Government’s delay in any way which satisfies this requisite of laches. In Brown v. County of Buena Vista, 95 U. S. 157, 161, this Court said: “The law.of laches, like the principle of the limitation of actions, was dictated by experience, and is founded in a salutary policy. The lapse of time carries with it the memory and life of witnesses, the muniments of evidence, and other means of proof.” Insofar as these factors inherent in the lapse of time were operative in the present case, they seem plainly to have worked to petitioner’s benefit, not to his detriment. The evidence of the petitioner’s real estate activity consisted almost exclusively of public records. There is no suggestion that these records are not all the evidence of real estate activity there is or that any had been destroyed or were unavailable. Nor do we perceive any prejudice to the petitioner in the fact that the Naturalization Examiners who processed his application, the witnesses who appeared for him, and the judge who admitted him to citizenship, are dead. The examiners and the judge obviously could supply no evidence bearing on his claim that real estate was his occupation. Their knowledge on that subject came from him. And it stretches credulity to suppose that he would have inquired of those officials whether “occupation” meant lawful occupation. Finally, the petitioner does not suggest how the witnesses who supported his petition could have aided him on any issue material in this proceeding. In addition, his bootlegging associate, Sausser, died in 1926, and would not have been available even had the Government brought a proceeding immediately after the criminal trial. •
Indeed, any harm from the lapse of time was to the Government’s case. Although that case was supported primarily by documentary proofs and the petitioner’s admissions, the Government supplemented this evidence with the testimony of the petitioner’s associates in the bootlegging enterprise, and of others who had knowledge of those events. The Government’s proof was made more difficult when a number of the witnesses admitted that their memories of details had dimmed with the passage of the years.
We cannot say, moreover, that the delay denied the petitioner fundamental fairness. He suffered no prejudice from any inability to prove his defenses. Rather,, the harm he may suffer lies in the harsh consequences, which may attend his loss of citizenship. He has been a resident of the United States for over 65 years, since the age of four. We may assume that he has built a life in reliance upon that citizenship. But Congress has not enacted a time bar applicable to proceedings to revoke citizenship procured by fraud. On this record, the petitioner never had a right to his citizenship. Depriving him of his fraudulently acquired privilege, even after the lapse of many years, is not so unreasonable as to constitute a denial of due process. Cf. Johannessen v. United States, 225 U. S. 227, 242-243.
IV.
The petitioner moved for leave to amend his petition for a writ of certiorari to add a question whether the present proceeding was barred by the order of the District Court dismissing the earlier proceeding on remand, without specifying whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice. We deferred decision on the motion pending oral argument. The motion is granted and we proceed to determine the merits of the question.
It is the petitioner's contention that the order dismissing the earlier complaint must be construed to be with prejudice because it did not specify that it was without prejudice, and the ground of dismissal was not within one of the exceptions under Rule 41 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That Rule provides:
“For failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of court, a defendant may move for dismissal of an action or of any claim against him. After the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his evidence, the defendant, without waiving his right to offer evidence in the event the motion is not granted, may move for a dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief.... Unless the court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies, a dismissal under this subdivision and any dismissal not provided for in this rule, other than a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction or for improper venue, operates as an adjudication upon the merits.”
We hold that a dismissal for failure to file the affidavit of good cause is a dismissal “for lack of jurisdiction/’ within the meaning of the exception under Rule 41 (b). In arguing contra, the petitioner relies on cases which hold that a judgment of denaturalization resulting from a proceeding in which the affidavit of good cause was not filed is not open to collateral attack on that ground. Title v. United States, 263 F. 2d 28; United States v. Failla, 164 F. Supp. 307. We think that petitioner misconceives the scope of this exception from the dismissals under Rule 41 (b) which operate as adjudications on the merits unless the court specifies otherwise. It is too narrow a reading of the exception to relate the concept of jurisdiction embodied there to the fundamental jurisdictional defects which render a judgment void and subject to collateral attack, such as lack of jurisdiction over the person or subject matter. We regard the exception as encompassing those dismissals which are based on a plaintiff’s failure to comply with a precondition requisite to the Court’s going forward to determine the merits of his substantive claim. Failure to file the affidavit of good cause in a denaturalization proceeding falls within this category. United States v. Zucca, supra; Costello v. United States, 356 U. S. 256.
At common law dismissal on a ground not going to the merits was not ordinarily a bar to a subsequent action on the same claim. In Haldeman v. United States, 91 U. S. 584, 585-586, which concerned a voluntary nonsuit, this Court said, “there must be at least one decision on a right between the parties before there can be said to be a termination of the controversy, and before a judgment can avail as a bar to a subsequent suit.... There must have been a right adjudicated or released in the first suit to make it a bar, and this fact must appear affirmatively.” A similar view applied to many dismissals on the motion of a defendant. In Hughes v. United States, 4 Wall. 232, 237, it was said: “In order that a judgment may constitute a bar to another suit, it must be rendered in a proceeding between the same parties or their privies, and the point of controversy must be the same in both cases, and must be determined on its merits. If the first suit was dismissed for defect of pleadings, or parties, or a misconception of the form of proceeding, or the want of jurisdiction, or was disposed of on any ground which did not go to the merits of the action, the judgment rendered will prove no bar to another suit.” See also House v. Mullen, 22 Wall. 42, 46; Swift v. McPherson, 232 U. S. 51, 56; St. Romes v. Levee Steam Cotton Press Co., 127 U. S. 614, 619; Burgett v. United States, 80 F. 2d 151; Gardner v. United States, 71 F. 2d 63.
We do not discern in Rule 41 (b) a purpose to change this common-law principle with respect to dismissals in which the merits could not be reached for failure of the plaintiff to satisfy a precondition. All of the dismissals enumerated in Rule 41 (b) which operate as adjudications on the merits — failure of the plaintiff to prosecute, or to comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure, or to comply with an order of the Court, or to present evidence showing a right to the relief on the facts and the law— primarily involve situations in which the defendant must incur the inconvenience of preparing to meet the merits because there is no initial bar to the Court’s reaching them. It is therefore logical that a dismissal on one of these grounds should, unless the Court otherwise specifies, bar a subsequent action. In defining the situations where dismissals “not provided for in this rule” also operate as adjudications on the merits, and are not to be deemed jurisdictional, it seems reasonable to confine them to those situations where the policy behind the enumerated grounds is equally applicable. Thus a sua sponte dismissal by the Court for failure of the plaintiff to comply with an order of the Court should be governed by the same policy. Although a sua sponte dismissal is not an enumerated ground, here too the defendant has been put to the trouble of preparing his defense because there was no initial bar to the Court’s reaching the merits. See United States v. Procter & Gam
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Thomas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
From 1998 until 2002, petitioners Texaco Inc. and Shell Oil Co. collaborated in a joint venture, Equilon Enterprises, to refine and sell gasoline in the western United States under the original Texaco and Shell Oil brand names. Respondents, a class of Texaco and Shell Oil service station owners, allege that petitioners engaged in unlawful price fixing when Equilon set a single price for both Texaco and Shell Oil brand gasoline. We granted certiorari to determine whether it is per se illegal under § 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U. S. C. § 1, for a lawful, economically integrated joint venture to set the prices at which the joint venture sells its products. We conclude that it is not, and accordingly we reverse the contrary judgment of the Court of Appeals.
I
Historically, Texaco and Shell Oil have competed with one another in the national and international oil and gasoline markets. Their business activities include refining crude oil into gasoline, as well as marketing gasoline to downstream purchasers, such as the service stations represented in respondents’ class action.
In 1998, Texaco and Shell Oil formed- a joint venture, Equilon, to consolidate their operations in the western United States, thereby ending competition between the two companies in the domestic refining and marketing of gasoline. Under the joint venture agreement, Texaco and Shell Oil agreed to pool their resources and share the risks of and profits from Equilon’s activities. Equilon’s board of directors would comprise representatives of Texaco and Shell Oil, and Equilon gasoline would be sold to downstream purchasers under the original Texaco and Shell Oil brand names. The formation of Equilon was approved by consent decree, subject to certain divestments and other modifications, by the Federal Trade Commission, see In re Shell Oil Co., 125 F. T. C. 769 (1998), as well as by the state attorneys general of California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington. Notably, the decrees imposed no restrictions on the pricing of Equilon gasoline.
After the joint venture began to operate, respondents brought suit in District Court, alleging that, by unifying gasoline prices under the two brands, petitioners had violated the per se rule against price fixing that this Court has long recognized under § 1 of the Sherman Act, ch. 647, 26 Stat. 209, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 1. See, e. g., Catalano, Inc. v. Target Sales, Inc., 446 U. S. 643, 647 (1980) (per curiam). The District Court awarded summary judgment to Texaco and Shell Oil. It determined that the rule of reason, rather than a per se rule or the quick look doctrine, governs respondents’ claim, and that, by eschewing rule of reason analysis, respondents had failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The Ninth Circuit reversed, characterizing petitioners’ position as a request for an “exception to the per se prohibition on price-fixing,” and rejecting that request. Dagher v. Saudi Refining, Inc., 369 F. 3d 1108, 1116 (2004). We consolidated Texaco’s and Shell Oil’s separate petitions and granted certiorari to determine the extent to which the per se rule against price fixing applies to an important and increasingly popular form of business organization, the joint venture. 545 U. S. 1138 (2005).
II
Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits “[e]very contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States.” 15 U. S. C. § 1. This Court has not taken a literal approach to this language, however. See, e. g., State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U. S. 3, 10 (1997) (“[T]his Court has long recognized that Congress intended to outlaw only unreasonable restraints” (emphasis added)). Instead, this Court presumptively applies rule of reason analysis, under which antitrust plaintiffs must demonstrate that a particular contract or combination is in fact unreasonable and anticompetitive before it will be found unlawful. See, e. g., id., at 10-19. Per se liability is reserved for only those agreements that are “so plainly anti-competitive that no elaborate study of the industry is needed to establish their illegality.” National Soc. of Professional Engineers v. United States, 435 U. S. 679, 692 (1978). Accordingly, “we have expressed reluctance to adopt per se rules . . . ‘where the economic impact of certain practices is not immediately obvious.’ ” State Oil, supra, at 10 (quoting FTC v. Indiana Federation of Dentists, 476 U. S. 447, 458-459 (1986)).
Price-fixing agreements between two or more competitors, otherwise known as horizontal price-fixing agreements, fall into the category of arrangements that are per se unlawful. See, e. g., Catalano, supra, at 647. These cases do not present such an agreement, however, because Texaco and Shell Oil did not compete with one another in the relevant market — namely, the sale of gasoline to service stations in the western United States — but instead participated in that market jointly through their investments in Equilon. In other words, the pricing policy challenged here amounts to little more than price setting by a single entity — albeit within the context of a joint venture — and not a pricing agreement between competing entities with respect to their competing products. Throughout Equilon’s existence, Texaco and Shell Oil shared in the profits of Equilon’s activities in their role as investors, not competitors. When “persons who would otherwise be competitors pool their capital and share the risks of loss as well as the opportunities for profit.. . such joint ventures [are] regarded as a single firm competing with other sellers in the market.” Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Soc., 457 U. S. 332, 356 (1982). As such, though Equilon’s pricing policy may be price fixing in a literal sense, it is not price fixing in the antitrust sense. See Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 441 U. S. 1, 9 (1979) (“When two partners set the price of their goods or services they are literally 'price fixing,’ but they are not per se in violation of the Sherman Act”).
This conclusion is confirmed by respondents’ apparent concession that there would be no per se liability had Equilon simply chosen to sell its gasoline under a single brand. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 34. We see no reason to treat Equilon differently just because it chose to sell gasoline under two distinct brands at a single price. As a single entity, a joint venture, like any other firm, must have the discretion to determine the prices of the products that it sells, including the discretion to sell a product under two different brands at a single, unified price. If Equilon’s price unification policy is anticompetitive, then respondents should have challenged it pursuant to the rule of reason. But it would be inconsistent with this Court’s antitrust precedents to condemn the internal pricing decisions of a legitimate joint venture as per se unlawful.
The court below reached the opposite conclusion by invoking the ancillary restraints doctrine. 369 F. 3d, at 1118-1124. That doctrine governs the validity of restrictions imposed by a legitimate business collaboration, such as a business association or joint venture, on nonventure activities. See, e. g., National Collegiate Athletic Assn. v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Okla., 468 U. S. 85, 113-115 (1984); Citizen Publishing Co. v. United States, 394 U. S. 131, 135-136 (1969). Under the doctrine, courts must determine whether the nonventure restriction is a naked restraint on trade, and thus invalid, or one that is ancillary to the legitimate and competitive purposes of the business association, and thus valid. We agree with petitioners that the ancillary restraints doctrine has no application here, where the business practice being challenged involves the core activity of the joint venture itself — namely, the pricing of the very goods produced and sold by Equilon. And even if we were to invoke the doctrine in these cases, Equilon’s pricing policy is clearly ancillary to the sale of its own products. Judge Fernandez, dissenting from the ruling of the court below, put it well:
“In this case, nothing more radical is afoot than the fact that an entity, which now owns all of the production, transportation, research, storage, sales and distribution facilities for engaging in the gasoline business, also prices its own products. It decided to price them the same, as any other entity could. What could be more integral to the running of a business than setting a price for its goods and services?” 369 F. 3d, at 1127.
See also Broadcast Music, supra, at 23 (“Joint ventures and other cooperative arrangements are ... not usually unlawful, at least not as price-fixing schemes, where the agreement on price is necessary to market the product at all”).
* * *
Because the pricing decisions of a legitimate joint venture do not fall within the narrow category of activity that is per se unlawful under § 1 of the Sherman Act, respondents’ antitrust claim cannot prevail. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
It is so ordered.
Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
We presume for purposes of these cases that Equilon is a lawful joint venture. Its formation has been approved by federal and state regulators, and there is no contention here that it is a sham. As the court below noted: “There is a voluminous record documenting the economic justifications for creating the joint ventures. [T]he defendants concluded that numerous synergies and cost efficiencies would result” by creating Equilon as well as a parallel venture, Motiva Enterprises, in the eastern United States, and “that nationwide there would be up to $800 million in cost savings annually.” 369 F. 3d 1108, 1111 (CA9 2004). Had respondents challenged Equilon itself, they would have been required to show that its creation was anticompetitive under the rule of reason. See Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., 467 U. S. 752, 768 (1984).
Respondents have not put forth a rule of reason claim. 369 F. 3d, at 1113. Accordingly, we need not address petitioners’ alternative argument that § 1 of the Sherman Act is inapplicable to joint ventures.
Respondents alternatively contend that petitioners should be held liable under the quick look doctrine. To be sure, we have applied the quick look doctrine to business activities that are so plainly anticompetitive that courts need undertake only a cursory examination before imposing antitrust liability. See California Dental Assn. v. FTC, 526 U. S. 756, 770 (1999). But for the same reasons that per se liability is unwarranted here, we conclude that petitioners cannot be held liable under the quick look doctrine.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
This case arises on petition for certiorari from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Montana. The petition for certiorari and the motion to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. For reasons appearing below, we vacate the judgment of the Supreme Court of Montana and remand the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Petitioners are members of the Blackfeet Indian Tribe and reside on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation in Montana. The tribe is duly organized under the Indian Reorganization Act of June 18, 1934, 48 Stat. 984, 25 U. S. C. § 461 et seq. In July and August of 1964, petitioners purchased some food on credit from a grocery store located within the town limits of Browning, a town incorporated under the laws of Montana but located within the exterior boundaries of the Blackfeet Reservation.
A suit was commenced in the Montana state courts against petitioners on the debt arising from these transactions. Petitioners moved to dismiss the suit on the ground that the state courts lacked jurisdiction because the defendants were members of the Blackfeet Tribe and the transactions took place on the Indian reservation. The lower state court overruled the motion and petitioners, pursuant to Montana,rules of procedure, petitioned the Supreme Court of Montana for a “writ of supervisory control” to review this lower court ruling. The State.Supreme Court took jurisdiction and affirmed.
Prior to the passage of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, 82 Stat. 78, 25 U. S. C. §.§ 1321-1326 (1964 ed., Supp. V), discussed infra, state assumption of civil jurisdiction — in situations where Congress had not explicitly extended jurisdiction — was governed by § 7 of the Act of August 15, 1953, 67 Stat. 590. Section 7 of that statute provided:
“The consent of the United States is hereby given to any other State not having jurisdiction with respect to criminal offenses or civil causes of action, or with respect to both, as provided for in this Act [referring to §§ 2 and 4, see n. 1, supra], to assume jurisdiction at such time and in such manner as the people of the State shall, by affirmative legislative action, obligate and bind the State to assumption thereof.”
Pursuant to this statute, the Montana Legislature enacted Chapter 81, Laws of 1963* (§§ 83-801, 83-806, Montana Rev. Codes Ann. (1966)), extending criminal, but not civil, jurisdiction'over Indians of the Flathead Indian Reservation. But Montana never took “affirmative legislative action” — concerning either civil or criminal jurisdiction — with respect to the Blackfeet .Reservation.
However, on November 20, 1967, the Blackfeet Tribal Council adopted Chapter 2, Civil Action, § 1, as part of the Blackfeet Tribal Law and Order Code, which provides, in relevant part:
“The Tribal Court and the State shall have concurrent and not exclusive jurisdiction of all suits wherein the defendant is a member of the Tribe which is brought before the Courts. . . .”
The Montana Supreme Court relied on this pre-1968 Tribal Council action as an alternative basis for the assertion of state civil jurisdiction over the instant litigation. In Williams v. Lee, 358 U. S. 217 (1959), a non-Indian brought suit against a Navajo Indian for a debt arising out of a transaction which took place on the Navajo Reservation. The Arizona State Supreme Court upheld the exercise of jurisdiction and we reversed. In the instant case, the Montana Supreme Court attempted to reconcile its result with Williams on the theory that the transfer of jurisdiction by unilateral tribal action is consistent with the exercise of tribal powers of self-government. 154 Mont. 488, 466 P. 2d 85.
The Court in Williams, in the process of discussing the general question of state action impinging on the affairs of reservation Indians, noted that “[essentially, absent governing Acts of Congress, the question has always been whether the state action infringed on the right of reservation Indians to make their own laws and be ruled by them.” 358 U. S., at 220. With regard to the particular question of the extension of state jurisdiction over civil causes of action by or against Indians arising in Indian country, there was, at the time of the Tribal Council resolution, a “governing Act of Congress,” i. e., the Act of 1953. • Section 7 of that statute conditioned the assumption of state jurisdiction on “affirmative legislative action” by the State; the Act made no provision whatsoever for tribal consent, either as a necessary or sufficient condition to the assumption of state jurisdiction. Nor was the requirement of affirmative legislative.action an Idle choice of words; the legislative history of the 1953 statute shows that the requirement was intended to assure that state jurisdiction would not be extended until the jurisdictions to be responsible for the portion of Indian country concerned manifested by political action their willingness and ability to discharge their new responsibilities. See H. R. Rep. No. 848, 83d Cong., 1st Sess., 6, 7 (1953); Williams, supra, at 220-221. Our conclusion as to the intended governing force of § 7 of the 1953 Act is reinforced by the comprehensive and detailed congressional scrutiny manifested in those instances where Congress has undertaken to extend the civil or criminal jurisdictions of certain States to Indian country. See n. 1, supra.
In Williams, the- Court went on to note the absence of affirmative congressional .action, or affirmative legislative action by the people of Arizona within the meaning of the 1953 Act. 358 U. S., at 222-223. Here it is conceded that Montana took no affirmative legislative'action with respect to the Blackfeet Reservation. The unilateral action of the Tribal Council was insufficient to vest Montana with ' jurisdiction over Indian country under the 1953 Act.
The remaining question is whether the pre-1968 manifestation of tribal consent by tribal council action can operate to vest Montana with jurisdiction under the provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. Title IV of the 1968 statute repealed § 7 of the 1953 Act and substituted a new regulatory scheme for the extension of state civil and criminal jurisdiction to litigation involving Indians arising in Indian country. See 25 U. S.- C. §§ 1321-1326 (1964 ed., Supp. V). Section 402 (a) of the Act, 25 U. S. C. § 1322 (a) (1964 ed., -Supp. V), dealing with civil jurisdiction, provides:
“The consent of the United States is hereby given to any State not having jurisdiction over civil causes of action between Indians'or to which Indians are parties which arise in the areas of Indian, country situated within such State to assume, with the consent of the tribe occupying the particular Indian country or part thereof which would be affected by such assumption, such measure of jurisdiction over any or all such civil causes of action arising within such Indian country or any part thereof as may be determined by such State to the same extent that such State has jurisdiction over other civil causes of action, and those civil laws of such State that are of general application to private persons or private property shall have the same force and effect within such Indian country or part thereof as they have elsewhere within that State.”
Section 406 of the Act, 25 U. S. C. § 1326 (1964 ed., Supp. V), then provides:
“State jurisdiction acquired pursuant to this sub-chapter with respect to criminal offensés or civil causes of action, or with respect to both, shall be applicable in Indian country only where the- enrolled Indians within the affected area of such Indian country accept such jurisdiction by a majority vote of the adult Indians voting at a special election held for that purpose. The Secretary of the Interior shall call such special election under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, when requested to do so by the tribal council or other governing body, or by 20 per centum of such enrolled adults.”
We think the meaning of these provisions is clear: the tribal consent that is prerequisite to the assumption of state jurisdiction under, the provisions of Title IV of the Act must be manifested by majority vote of the enrolled Indians within the affected area of Indian country. Legislative action by the Tribal Council does not comport with the explicit requirements of the Act.
Finally, with regard to the 1968 enactment, this case presents no question concerning the power of the Indian tribes to place time, geographical, or other conditions on the “tribal consent” to state exercise of jurisdiction. Rather, we are presented solely with a question of the procedures by which “tribal consent” must be manifested under the new Act. Thus the suggestion made in dissent that, under today’s disposition, “[t]he reservation Indians must now choose between exclusive tribal court jurisdiction on the one hand and permanent, irrevocable state jurisdiction on the other,” is incorrect.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Montana is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
For example, § 4 of the Act of August 15, 1953, 67 Stat. 589, 28 U. S. C. § 1360 (a), extended jurisdiction over civil causes of action arising in Indian country to which Indians are parties to five States. The statute is illustrative of the detailed regulatory scrutiny which Congress has traditionally brought to bear on the extension of state jurisdiction, whether civil or criminal, to actions to which Indians are parties arising in Indian country. ' See also § 2 of the Act, 67 Stat. 588, 18 U. S. C. § 1162, extending criminal jurisdiction to the same States over offenses involving Indians committed in Indian country. Montana was not one of the five States accorded civil and criminal jurisdiction under these sections of the statute.
As discussed infra, § 403 (b) of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, 82 Stat. 79, 25 U. S. C. § 1323 (b) (1964 ed., Supp. V), repealed § 7 of the Act of 1953. But § 403 (b) provides: “such repeal shall not affect any cession of jurisdiction made pursuant to [§ 7] prior to its repeal.” Further, §§ 402 and 406 of the 1968 Act, which govern the assumption of civil jurisdiction by States, appear to cover only States not presently having such jurisdiction.
The instant litigation commenced aft.er the passage .of the 1968 Act. However, since the Tribal Council action preceded the 1968 Act — and under the state court’s reasoning vested, the State with jurisdiction'at that point in time — we must consider the validity of the State’s assertion of jurisdiction under the 1953 Act as well as the 1968 Act.
The Montana Supreme Court also sought to distinguish Williams outright on the ground that the plaintiff in that case had, at one point,.secured a writ of attachment on Indian-owned livestock on the Navajo Reservation, bringing into play'special federal' protective policies with regard to Indian livestock. However, the Arizona Supreme Court judgment under review in Williams had set aside the writ of attachment on the very basis relied upon by the Montana Supreme Court in its opinion in this case ás a distinguishing ground. Williams v. Lee, 83 Ariz. 241, 247-248, 319-P. 2d 998, 1002-1003 (1958). Respondent in Williams did not seek review of that portion of the judgment; and, of course, the Court’s opinion in Williams makes no reference to the attachment.
But see n. 2, supra.
The plain meaning of the statute is reinforced by the legislative history. Title IV of the 1968 Act was offered and principally sponsored by Senator Ervin of North Carolina as part of an amendment by way of a substitute to H. R. 2516, which eventually became part of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. See 114 Cong. Rec. 393-395. In discussing Title IV, Senator Ervin stated, id., at 394:
“This title repeals section 7 [of the 1953 Act] and authorizes States to assert civil and criminal jurisdiction in Indian country only after acquiring the consent of the tribes in the States by referendum of all- reservated Indians.”
See also S. Rep. No. 721, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 32 (1967) (additional views,jof Sen. Ervin). Senator Ervin’s proposals were eventually adopted as an amendment to' the Dirksen amendment to the 1968 Act. See 114 Cong. Rec. 5836-5838.
The dissent’s rebutting footnote infers from the express allowance for selective state exercise of jurisdiction a congressional intent to exclude selective tribal consent, to state exercise of jurisdiction. That inference is so obviously not compelled by either the language or structure of 25 U. S. C. § 1322 (a) (1964 ed., Supp. V), the full text of which is quoted above, that we think no further response is needed. We reiterate, however, that with respect to the 1968 enactment, today’s decision is concerned solely with procedural mechanisms by which tribal consent must be registered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court.
Two women then resident in New York were married in a lawful ceremony in Ontario, Canada, in 2007. Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer returned to their home in New York City. When Spyer died in 2009, she left her entire estate to Windsor. Windsor sought to claim the estate tax exemption for surviving spouses. She was barred from doing so, however, by a federal law, the Defense of Marriage Act, which excludes a same-sex partner from the definition of "spouse" as that term is used in federal statutes. Windsor paid the taxes but filed suit to challenge the constitutionality of this provision. The United States District Court and the Court of Appeals ruled that this portion of the statute is unconstitutional and ordered the United States to pay Windsor a refund. This Court granted certiorari and now affirms the judgment in Windsor's favor.
I
In 1996, as some States were beginning to consider the concept of same-sex marriage, see, e.g., Baehr v. Lewin, 74 Haw. 530, 852 P.2d 44 (1993), and before any State had acted to permit it, Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), 110 Stat. 2419. DOMA contains two operative sections: Section 2, which has not been challenged here, allows States to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed under the laws of other States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1738C.
Section 3 is at issue here. It amends the Dictionary Act in Title 1, § 7, of the United States Code to provide a federal definition of "marriage" and "spouse." Section 3 of DOMA provides as follows:
"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." 1 U.S.C. § 7.
The definitional provision does not by its terms forbid States from enacting laws permitting same-sex marriages or civil unions or providing state benefits to residents in that status. The enactment's comprehensive definition of marriage for purposes of all federal statutes and other regulations or directives covered by its terms, however, does control over 1,000 federal laws in which marital or spousal status is addressed as a matter of federal law. See GAO, D. Shah, Defense of Marriage Act: Update to Prior Report 1 (GAO-04-353R, 2004).
Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer met in New York City in 1963 and began a long-term relationship. Windsor and Spyer registered as domestic partners when New York City gave that right to same-sex couples in 1993. Concerned about Spyer's health, the couple made the 2007 trip to Canada for their marriage, but they continued to reside in New York City. The State of New York deems their Ontario marriage to be a valid one. See 699 F.3d 169, 177-178 (C.A.2 2012).
Spyer died in February 2009, and left her entire estate to Windsor. Because DOMA denies federal recognition to same-sex spouses, Windsor did not qualify for the marital exemption from the federal estate tax, which excludes from taxation "any interest in property which passes or has passed from the decedent to his surviving spouse." 26 U.S.C. § 2056(a). Windsor paid $363,053 in estate taxes and sought a refund. The Internal Revenue Service denied the refund, concluding that, under DOMA, Windsor was not a "surviving spouse." Windsor commenced this refund suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. She contended that DOMA violates the guarantee of equal protection, as applied to the Federal Government through the Fifth Amendment.
While the tax refund suit was pending, the Attorney General of the United States notified the Speaker of the House of Representatives, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 530D, that the Department of Justice would no longer defend the constitutionality of DOMA's § 3. Noting that "the Department has previously defended DOMA against... challenges involving legally married same-sex couples," App. 184, the Attorney General informed Congress that "the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a heightened standard of scrutiny." Id., at 191. The Department of Justice has submitted many § 530D letters over the years refusing to defend laws it deems unconstitutional, when, for instance, a federal court has rejected the Government's defense of a statute and has issued a judgment against it. This case is unusual, however, because the § 530D letter was not preceded by an adverse judgment. The letter instead reflected the Executive's own conclusion, relying on a definition still being debated and considered in the courts, that heightened equal protection scrutiny should apply to laws that classify on the basis of sexual orientation.
Although "the President... instructed the Department not to defend the statute in Windsor, " he also decided "that Section 3 will continue to be enforced by the Executive Branch" and that the United States had an "interest in providing Congress a full and fair opportunity to participate in the litigation of those cases." Id., at 191-193. The stated rationale for this dual-track procedure (determination of unconstitutionality coupled with ongoing enforcement) was to "recogniz[e] the judiciary as the final arbiter of the constitutional claims raised." Id., at 192.
In response to the notice from the Attorney General, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) of the House of Representatives voted to intervene in the litigation to defend the constitutionality of § 3 of DOMA. The Department of Justice did not oppose limited intervention by BLAG. The District Court denied BLAG's motion to enter the suit as of right, on the rationale that the United States already was represented by the Department of Justice. The District Court, however, did grant intervention by BLAG as an interested party. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 24(a)(2).
On the merits of the tax refund suit, the District Court ruled against the United States. It held that § 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional and ordered the Treasury to refund the tax with interest. Both the Justice Department and BLAG filed notices of appeal, and the Solicitor General filed a petition for certiorari before judgment. Before this Court acted on the petition, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment. It applied heightened scrutiny to classifications based on sexual orientation, as both the Department and Windsor had urged. The United States has not complied with the judgment. Windsor has not received her refund, and the Executive Branch continues to enforce § 3 of DOMA.
In granting certiorari on the question of the constitutionality of § 3 of DOMA, the Court requested argument on two additional questions: whether the United States' agreement with Windsor's legal position precludes further review and whether BLAG has standing to appeal the case. All parties agree that the Court has jurisdiction to decide this case; and, with the case in that framework, the Court appointed Professor Vicki Jackson as amicus curiae to argue the position that the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the dispute. 568 U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 786, 184 L.Ed.2d 527 (2012). She has ably discharged her duties.
In an unrelated case, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has also held § 3 of DOMA to be unconstitutional. A petition for certiorari has been filed in that case. Pet. for Cert. in Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group v. Gill, O.T. 2012, No. 12-13.
II
It is appropriate to begin by addressing whether either the Government or BLAG, or both of them, were entitled to appeal to the Court of Appeals and later to seek certiorari and appear as parties here.
There is no dispute that when this case was in the District Court it presented a concrete disagreement between opposing parties, a dispute suitable for judicial resolution. "[A] taxpayer has standing to challenge the collection of a specific tax assessment as unconstitutional; being forced to pay such a tax causes a real and immediate economic injury to the individual taxpayer." Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., 551 U.S. 587, 599, 127 S.Ct. 2553, 168 L.Ed.2d 424 (2007) (plurality opinion) (emphasis deleted). Windsor suffered a redressable injury when she was required to pay estate taxes from which, in her view, she was exempt but for the alleged invalidity of § 3 of DOMA.
The decision of the Executive not to defend the constitutionality of § 3 in court while continuing to deny refunds and to assess deficiencies does introduce a complication. Even though the Executive's current position was announced before the District Court entered its judgment, the Government's agreement with Windsor's position would not have deprived the District Court of jurisdiction to entertain and resolve the refund suit; for her injury (failure to obtain a refund allegedly required by law) was concrete, persisting, and unredressed. The Government's position-agreeing with Windsor's legal contention but refusing to give it effect-meant that there was a justiciable controversy between the parties, despite what the claimant would find to be an inconsistency in that stance. Windsor, the Government, BLAG, and the amicus appear to agree upon that point. The disagreement is over the standing of the parties, or aspiring parties, to take an appeal in the Court of Appeals and to appear as parties in further proceedings in this Court.
The amicus' position is that, given the Government's concession that § 3 is unconstitutional, once the District Court ordered the refund the case should have ended; and the amicus argues the Court of Appeals should have dismissed the appeal. The amicus submits that once the President agreed with Windsor's legal position and the District Court issued its judgment, the parties were no longer adverse. From this standpoint the United States was a prevailing party below, just as Windsor was. Accordingly, the amicus reasons, it is inappropriate for this Court to grant certiorari and proceed to rule on the merits; for the United States seeks no redress from the judgment entered against it.
This position, however, elides the distinction between two principles: the jurisdictional requirements of Article III and the prudential limits on its exercise. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975). The latter are "essentially matters of judicial self-governance." Id., at 500, 95 S.Ct. 2197. The Court has kept these two strands separate: "Article III standing, which enforces the Constitution's case-or-controversy requirement, see Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 559-562, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) ; and prudential standing, which embodies 'judicially self-imposed limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction,' Allen [v. Wright, ] 468 U.S. [737,] 751, 104 S.Ct. 3315 [82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984) ]." Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 11-12, 124 S.Ct. 2301, 159 L.Ed.2d 98 (2004).
The requirements of Article III standing are familiar:
"First, the plaintiff must have suffered an 'injury in fact'-an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) 'actual or imminent, not "conjectural or hypothetical."'Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of-the injury has to be 'fairly... trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not... th[e] result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court.' Third, it must be 'likely,' as opposed to merely'speculative,' that the injury will be'redressed by a favorable decision.' "
Lujan, supra, at 560-561, 112 S.Ct. 2130 (footnote and citations omitted).
Rules of prudential standing, by contrast, are more flexible "rule[s]... of federal appellate practice," Deposit Guaranty Nat. Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 333, 100 S.Ct. 1166, 63 L.Ed.2d 427 (1980), designed to protect the courts from "decid[ing] abstract questions of wide public significance even [when] other governmental institutions may be more competent to address the questions and even though judicial intervention may be unnecessary to protect individual rights." Warth, supra, at 500, 95 S.Ct. 2197.
In this case the United States retains a stake sufficient to support Article III jurisdiction on appeal and in proceedings before this Court. The judgment in question orders the United States to pay Windsor the refund she seeks. An order directing the Treasury to pay money is "a real and immediate economic injury," Hein, 551 U.S., at 599, 127 S.Ct. 2553, indeed as real and immediate as an order directing an individual to pay a tax. That the Executive may welcome this order to pay the refund if it is accompanied by the constitutional ruling it wants does not eliminate the injury to the national Treasury if payment is made, or to the taxpayer if it is not. The judgment orders the United States to pay money that it would not disburse but for the court's order. The Government of the United States has a valid legal argument that it is injured even if the Executive disagrees with § 3 of DOMA, which results in Windsor's liability for the tax. Windsor's ongoing claim for funds that the United States refuses to pay thus establishes a controversy sufficient for Article III jurisdiction. It would be a different case if the Executive had taken the further step of paying Windsor the refund to which she was entitled under the District Court's ruling.
This Court confronted a comparable case in INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 103 S.Ct. 2764, 77 L.Ed.2d 317 (1983). A statute by its terms allowed one House of Congress to order the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to deport the respondent Chadha. There, as here, the Executive determined that the statute was unconstitutional, and "the INS presented the Executive's views on the constitutionality of the House action to the Court of Appeals." Id., at 930, 103 S.Ct. 2764. The INS, however, continued to abide by the statute, and "the INS brief to the Court of Appeals did not alter the agency's decision to comply with the House action ordering deportation of Chadha." Ibid. This Court held "that the INS was sufficiently aggrieved by the Court of Appeals decision prohibiting it from taking action it would otherwise take," ibid., regardless of whether the agency welcomed the judgment. The necessity of a "case or controversy" to satisfy Article III was defined as a requirement that the Court's " 'decision will have real meaning: if we rule for Chadha, he will not be deported; if we uphold [the statute], the INS will execute its order and deport him.' " Id., at 939-940, 103 S.Ct. 2764 (quoting Chadha v. INS, 634 F.2d 408, 419 (C.A.9 1980) ). This conclusion was not dictum. It was a necessary predicate to the Court's holding that "prior to Congress' intervention, there was adequate Art. III adverseness." 462 U.S., at 939, 103 S.Ct. 2764. The holdings of cases are instructive, and the words of Chadha make clear its holding that the refusal of the Executive to provide the relief sought suffices to preserve a justiciable dispute as required by Article III. In short, even where "the Government largely agree[s] with the opposing party on the merits of the controversy," there is sufficient adverseness and an "adequate basis for jurisdiction in the fact that the Government intended to enforce the challenged law against that party." Id., at 940, n. 12, 103 S.Ct. 2764.
It is true that "[a] party who receives all that he has sought generally is not aggrieved by the judgment affording the relief and cannot appeal from it." Roper,supra, at 333, 100 S.Ct. 1166, see also Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. ----, ----, 131 S.Ct. 2020, 2030, 179 L.Ed.2d 1118 (2011) ( "As a matter of practice and prudence, we have generally declined to consider cases at the request of a prevailing party, even when the Constitution allowed us to do so"). But this rule "does not have its source in the jurisdictional limitations of Art. III. In an appropriate case, appeal may be permitted... at the behest of the party who has prevailed on the merits, so long as that party retains a stake in the appeal satisfying the requirements of Art. III." Roper, supra, at 333-334, 100 S.Ct. 1166.
While these principles suffice to show that this case presents a justiciable controversy under Article III, the prudential problems inherent in the Executive's unusual position require some further discussion. The Executive's agreement with Windsor's legal argument raises the risk that instead of a "'real, earnest and vital controversy,' " the Court faces a "friendly, non-adversary, proceeding... [in which] 'a party beaten in the legislature [seeks to] transfer to the courts an inquiry as to the constitutionality of the legislative act.' " Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288, 346, 56 S.Ct. 466, 80 L.Ed. 688 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring) (quoting Chicago & Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Wellman, 143 U.S. 339, 345, 12 S.Ct. 400, 36 L.Ed. 176 (1892) ). Even when Article III permits the exercise of federal jurisdiction, prudential considerations demand that the Court insist upon "that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions." Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962).
There are, of course, reasons to hear a case and issue a ruling even when one party is reluctant to prevail in its position. Unlike Article III requirements-which must be satisfied by the parties before judicial consideration is appropriate-the relevant prudential factors that counsel against hearing this case are subject to "countervailing considerations [that] may outweigh the concerns underlying the usual reluctance to exert judicial power." Warth, 422 U.S., at 500-501, 95 S.Ct. 2197. One consideration is the extent to which adversarial presentation of the issues is assured by the participation of amici curiae prepared to defend with vigor the constitutionality of the legislative act. With respect to this prudential aspect of standing as well, the Chadha Court encountered a similar situation. It noted that "there may be prudential, as opposed to Art. III, concerns about sanctioning the adjudication of [this case] in the absence of any participant supporting the validity of [the statute]. The Court of Appeals properly dispelled any such concerns by inviting and accepting briefs from both Houses of Congress." 462 U.S., at 940, 103 S.Ct. 2764. Chadha was not an anomaly in this respect. The Court adopts the practice of entertaining arguments made by an amicus when the Solicitor General confesses error with respect to a judgment below, even if the confession is in effect an admission that an Act of Congress is unconstitutional. See, e.g., Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 120 S.Ct. 2326, 147 L.Ed.2d 405 (2000).
In the case now before the Court the attorneys for BLAG present a substantial argument for the constitutionality of § 3 of DOMA. BLAG's sharp adversarial presentation of the issues satisfies the prudential concerns that otherwise might counsel against hearing an appeal from a decision with which the principal parties agree. Were this Court to hold that prudential rules require it to dismiss the case, and, in consequence, that the Court of Appeals erred in failing to dismiss it as well, extensive litigation would ensue. The district courts in 94 districts throughout the Nation would be without precedential guidance not only in tax refund suits but also in cases involving the whole of DOMA's sweep involving over 1,000 federal statutes and a myriad of federal regulations. For instance, the opinion of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, addressing the validity of DOMA in a case involving regulations of the Department of Health and Human Services, likely would be vacated with instructions to dismiss, its ruling and guidance also then erased. See Massachusetts v. United States Dept. of Health and Human Servs., 682 F.3d 1 (C.A.1 2012). Rights and privileges of hundreds of thousands of persons would be adversely affected, pending a case in which all prudential concerns about justiciability are absent. That numerical prediction may not be certain, but it is certain that the cost in judicial resources and expense of litigation for all persons adversely affected would be immense. True, the very extent of DOMA's mandate means that at some point a case likely would arise without the prudential concerns raised here; but the costs, uncertainties, and alleged harm and injuries likely would continue for a time measured in years before the issue is resolved. In these unusual and urgent circumstances, the very term "prudential" counsels that it is a proper exercise of the Court's responsibility to take jurisdiction. For these reasons, the prudential and Article III requirements are met here; and, as a consequence, the Court need not decide whether BLAG would have standing to challenge the District Court's ruling and its affirmance in the Court of Appeals on BLAG's own authority.
The Court's conclusion that this petition may be heard on the merits does not imply that no difficulties would ensue if this were a common practice in ordinary cases. The Executive's failure to defend the constitutionality of an Act of Congress based on a constitutional theory not yet established in judicial decisions has created a procedural dilemma. On the one hand, as noted, the Government's agreement with Windsor raises questions about the propriety of entertaining a suit in which it seeks affirmance of an order invalidating a federal law and ordering the United States to pay money. On the other hand, if the Executive's agreement with a plaintiff that a law is unconstitutional is enough to preclude judicial review, then the Supreme Court's primary role in determining the constitutionality of a law that has inflicted real injury on a plaintiff who has brought a justiciable legal claim would become only secondary to the President's. This would undermine the clear dictate of the separation-of-powers principle that "when an Act of Congress is alleged to conflict with the Constitution, '[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.' " Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U.S. ----, ----, 132 S.Ct. 1421, 1427-1428, 182 L.Ed.2d 423 (2012) (quoting Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803) ). Similarly, with respect to the legislative power, when Congress has passed a statute and a President has signed it, it poses grave challenges to the separation of powers for the Executive at a particular moment to be able to nullify Congress' enactment solely on its own initiative and without any determination from the Court.
The Court's jurisdictional holding, it must be underscored, does not mean the arguments for dismissing this dispute on prudential grounds lack substance. Yet the difficulty the Executive faces should be acknowledged. When the Executive makes a principled determination that a statute is unconstitutional, it faces a difficult choice. Still, there is no suggestion here that it is appropriate for the Executive as a matter of course to challenge statutes in the judicial forum rather than making the case to Congress for their amendment or repeal. The integrity of the political process would be at risk if difficult constitutional issues were simply referred to the Court as a routine exercise. But this case is not routine. And the capable defense of the law by BLAG ensures that these prudential issues do not cloud the merits question, which is one of immediate importance to the Federal Government and to hundreds of thousands of persons. These circumstances support the Court's decision to proceed to the merits.
III
When at first Windsor and Spyer longed to marry, neither New York nor any other State granted them that right. After waiting some years, in 2007 they traveled to Ontario to be married there. It seems fair to conclude that, until recent years, many citizens had not even considered the possibility that two persons of the same sex might aspire to occupy the same status and dignity as that of a man and woman in lawful marriage. For marriage between a man and a woman no doubt had been thought of by most people as essential to the very definition of that term and to its role and function throughout the history of civilization. That belief, for many who long have held it, became even more urgent, more cherished when challenged. For others, however, came the beginnings of a new perspective, a new insight. Accordingly some States concluded that same-sex marriage ought to be given recognition and validity in the law for those same-sex couples who wish to define themselves by their commitment to each other. The limitation of lawful marriage to heterosexual couples, which for centuries had been deemed both necessary and fundamental, came to be seen in New York and certain other States as an unjust exclusion.
Slowly at first and then in rapid course, the laws of New York came to acknowledge the urgency of this issue for same-sex couples who wanted to affirm their commitment to one another before their children, their family, their friends, and their community. And so New York recognized same-sex marriages performed elsewhere; and then it later amended its own marriage laws to permit same-sex marriage. New York, in common with, as of this writing, 11 other States and the District of Columbia, decided that same-sex couples should have the right to marry and so live with pride in themselves and their union and in a status of equality with all other married persons. After a statewide deliberative process that enabled its citizens to discuss and weigh arguments for and against same-sex marriage, New York acted to enlarge the definition of marriage to correct what its citizens and elected representatives perceived to be an injustice that they had not earlier known or understood. See Marriage Equality Act, 2011 N.Y. Laws 749 (codified at N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law Ann. §§ 10-a, 10-b, 13 (West 2013)).
Against this background of lawful same-sex marriage in some States, the design, purpose, and effect of DOMA should be considered as the beginning point in deciding whether it is valid under the Constitution. By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage, as will be discussed in more detail, has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States. Yet it is further established that Congress, in enacting discrete statutes, can make determinations that bear on marital rights and privileges. Just this Term the Court upheld the authority of the Congress to pre-empt state laws, allowing a former spouse to retain life insurance proceeds under a federal program that gave her priority, because of formal beneficiary designation rules, over the wife by a second marriage who survived the husband. Hillman v. Maretta, 569 U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 1943, 186 L.Ed.2d 43 (2013) ; see also Ridgway v. Ridgway, 454 U.S. 46, 102 S.Ct. 49, 70 L.Ed.2d 39 (1981) ; Wissner v. Wissner, 338 U.S. 655, 70 S.Ct. 398, 94 L.Ed. 424 (1950). This is one example of the general principle that when the Federal Government acts in the exercise of its own proper authority, it has a wide choice of the mechanisms and means to adopt. See McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 421, 4 L.Ed. 579 (1819). Congress has the power both to ensure efficiency in the administration of its programs and to choose what larger goals and policies to pursue.
Other precedents involving congressional statutes which affect marriages and family status further illustrate this point. In addressing the interaction of state domestic relations and federal immigration law Congress determined that marriages "entered into for the purpose of procuring an alien's admission [to the United States] as an immigrant" will not qualify the noncitizen for that status, even if the noncitizen's marriage is valid and proper for state-law purposes. 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(b)(1) (2006 ed. and Supp. V). And in establishing income-based criteria for Social Security benefits, Congress decided that although state law would determine in general who qualifies as an applicant's spouse, common-law marriages also should be recognized, regardless of any particular State's view on these relationships. 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(d)(2).
Though these discrete examples establish the constitutionality of limited federal laws that regulate the meaning of marriage in order to further federal policy, DOMA has a far greater reach; for it enacts a directive applicable to over 1,000 federal statutes and the whole realm of federal regulations. And its operation is directed to a class of persons that the laws of New York, and of 11 other States, have sought to protect. See Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309, 798 N.E.2d 941 (2003) ; An Act Implementing the Guarantee of Equal Protection Under the Constitution of the State for Same Sex Couples, 2009 Conn. Pub. Acts no. 09-13; Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 2009) ; Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 15, § 8 (2010); N.H.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 457:1-a (West Supp.2012) ; Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009, 57 D.C. Reg. 27 (Dec. 18, 2009); N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law Ann. § 10-a (West Supp. 2013);
Wash. Rev.Code § 26.04.010 (2012); Citizen Initiative, Same-Sex Marriage, Question 1 (Me. 2012) (results online at http:// www.maine.gov/sos/cec/elec/2012/tab-ref-2012.html (all Internet sources as visited June 18, 2013, and available in Clerk of Court's case file)); Md. Fam. Law Code Ann. § 2-201 (Lexis 2012) ; An Act to Amend Title 13 of the Delaware Code Relating to Domestic Relations to Provide for Same-Gender Civil Marriage and to Convert Existing Civil Unions to Civil Marriages, 79 Del. Laws ch. 19 (2013); An act relating to marriage; providing for civil marriage between two persons; providing for exemptions and protections based on religious association, 2013 Minn. Laws ch. 74; An Act Relating to Domestic Relations-Persons Eligible to Marry, 2013 R. I. Laws ch. 4.
In order to assess the validity of that intervention it is necessary to discuss the extent of the state power and authority over marriage as a matter of history and tradition. State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967) ; but, subject to those guarantees, "regulation of domestic relations" is "an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States." Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393, 404, 95 S.Ct. 553, 42 L.Ed.2d 532 (1975).
The recognition of civil marriages is central to state domestic relations law applicable to its residents and citizens. See Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287, 298, 63 S.Ct. 207, 87 L.Ed. 279 (1942) ("Each state as a sovereign has a rightful and legitimate concern in the marital status of persons domiciled within its borders"). The definition of marriage is the foundation of the State's broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect to the "[p]rotection of offspring, property interests, and the enforcement of marital responsibilities." Ibid. "[T]he states, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce... [and] the Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce." Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U.S. 562, 575, 26 S.Ct. 525, 50 L.Ed. 867 (1906) ; see also In re Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 593-594, 10 S.Ct. 850, 34 L.Ed. 500 (1890) ("The whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States").
Consistent with this allocation of authority, the Federal Government, through our history, has deferred to state-law policy decisions with respect to domestic relations. In De Sylva v. Ballentine, 351 U.S. 570, 76 S.Ct. 974, 100 L.Ed. 1415 (1956), for example, the Court held that, "[t]o decide who is the widow or widower of a deceased author, or who are his executors or next of kin," under the Copyright Act "requires a reference to the law of the State which created those legal relationships" because "there is no federal law of domestic relations." Id., at 580, 76 S.Ct. 974. In order to respect this principle, the federal courts, as a general rule, do not adjudicate issues of marital status even when there might otherwise be a basis for federal jurisdiction. See Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703, 112 S.Ct. 2206, 119 L.Ed.2d 468 (1992). Federal courts will not hear divorce and custody cases even if they arise in diversity because of "the virtually exclusive primacy... of the States in the regulation of domestic relations." Id., at 714, 112 S.Ct. 2206 (Blackmun, J., concurring in judgment).
The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation's beginning;
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | D | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court.
The sole issue in this case is whether petitioner, the trustee in reorganization of Webb & Knapp, Inc., has standing under Chapter X of the Bankruptcy Act, 52 Stat. 883, 11 U. S. C. § 501 et seq., to assert, on behalf of persons holding debentures issued by Webb & Knapp, claims of misconduct by an indenture trustee. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York held that petitioner lacked the requisite standing, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed en banc, with two judges dissenting, 439 F. 2d 118 (1971). We granted certiorari, 404 U. S. 982 (1971), and we now affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.
I
Webb & Knapp and its numerous subsidiaries were engaged in various real estate activities in both the United States and Canada. In 1954, the corporation executed an indenture with respondent, the Marine Midland Trust Company of New York (Marine), that provided for the issuance by Webb & Knapp of 5% debentures in the total amount of $8,607,600. A critical part of the indenture was the promise by Webb & Knapp that neither it nor any company affiliated with it would incur or assume “any indebtedness resulting from money borrowed or from the purchase of real property or interests in real property... or purchase any real property or interests in real property” unless the company’s consolidated tangible assets, as defined in the indenture, equaled 200% of certain liabilities, after giving effect to the contemplated indebtedness or purchase. By requiring the company to maintain an asset-liability ratio of 2:1, the indenture sought to protect debenture purchasers by providing a cushion against any losses that the company might suffer in the ordinary course of business. In order to demonstrate continuing compliance with the requirements of the indenture, Webb & Knapp covenanted to file an annual certificate with Marine stating whether the corporation (debtor) had defaulted on any of its responsibilities under the indenture during the preceding year.
In its role as indenture trustee, Marine undertook “in case of default... to exercise such of the rights and powers vested in it by [the] Indenture, and to use the same degree of care and skill in their exercise, as a prudent man would exercise or use under the circumstances in the conduct of his own affairs.” This undertaking was qualified by language in the indenture that permitted the trustee to rely on the accuracy of certificates or reports of Webb & Knapp, in the absence of bad faith.
Commencing in 1959, Webb & Knapp sustained substantial financial losses in every year. Finally, on May 7, 1965, Marine filed a petition in district court seeking the involuntary reorganization of Webb & Knapp under Chapter X of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U. S. C. § 501 et seq. Pursuant to § 208 of Chapter X, 11 U. S. C. § 608, the Securities and Exchange Commission intervened on May 10, 1965. Marine’s petition was subsequently approved and petitioner was appointed trustee in reorganization on May 18, 1965.
With the approval of the District Court, petitioner exercised the powers conferred upon him by 11 U. S. C. § 567 and undertook an extensive investigation of the financial affairs of Webb & Knapp. His investigation showed that the company had total assets of $21,538,621 and total liabilities of $60,036,164, plus contingent tax liabilities of $29,400,000. Included among the liabilities were the 1954 debentures in the principal amount of $4,298,200 plus interest subsequent to the inception of the reorganization proceeding.
The investigation led petitioner to conclude that Marine had either willfully or negligently failed to fulfill its obligations under the indenture. Petitioner supported his conclusion with the following allegations: that from 1954 to 1964, Webb & Knapp’s yearly certificates of compliance with the 2:1 asset-liability ratio mandated by the indenture were fraudulent, because they were based on grossly overvalued appraisals of real estate property; that from 1958 to 1964, Webb & Knapp did not have sufficient assets to comply with the terms of the indenture; that Marine should have known or did know of the inflated appraisals; and that because Marine permitted Webb & Knapp to violate the indenture by engaging in transactions that its impaired asset-liability ratio forbade, Webb & Knapp suffered great financial losses.
Having obtained the approval of the District Court, petitioner filed an independent action on behalf of the debenture holders against Marine seeking to recover the principal amount of the outstanding debentures as damages for Marine’s alleged bad-faith failure to compel compliance with the terms of the indenture by Webb & Knapp. Petitioner also filed a counterclaim in the same amount against Marine in the reorganization proceeding in which Marine had previously filed a claim for services rendered. In the reorganization proceeding, petitioner also filed an objection to the claim for services rendered, on the ground that even if petitioner could not obtain an affirmative recovery against Marine on behalf of the bondholders, he could at least raise Marine’s improper conduct as a reason why the claim for services rendered should be denied. Finally, petitioner moved to compel an accounting by Marine.
Marine moved to dismiss the independent action and the counterclaim, moved to strike the objection to the claim for services rendered, and opposed the motion to compel an accounting. The District Court found that petitioner had no standing in his capacity as a trustee in reorganization under Chapter X of the Bankruptcy Act to raise claims of misconduct by an indenture trustee on behalf of debenture holders and granted both of Marine’s motions to dismiss. Viewing the motion to compel an accounting as merely a third vehicle to raise the same claim on behalf of the debenture holders, the District Court denied that motion also. Only petitioner’s objection to the claim for services rendered was left standing. Petitioner appealed the dismissal of his claims and the denial of his motion for an accounting to the Court of Appeals. Marine filed a cross-appeal from the denial of its motion to strike petitioner’s objection to the claim for services rendered. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the District Court in its entirety.
H-1 h — I
The issue confronting us has never before been presented to this Court. It is an issue that has only rarely been presented to other courts, and on those rare occasions, it has caused even the most able jurists to disagree. The first time the issue arose was in Clarke v. Chase National Bank, 137 F. 2d 797 (CA2 1943). Judge Augustus Hand wrote the opinion of the court holding that a trustee in reorganization did not have standing to sue a third party on behalf of bondholders. Judge Learned Hand disagreed and dissented. It is this decision that the lower courts found controlling in the instant case. The Clarke case is, in fact, the only other case in which the issue that is raised here was squarely presented. The issue is a difficult one, and, as we point out later, it is one that is capable of resolution by explicit congressional action. Lacking a specific legislative statement on this issue, we must resolve it as best we can by examining the nature of Chapter X proceedings, the role of the trustee in reorganization, and the way in which standing to sue on behalf of debenture holders would affect or change that role.
Chapter X, enacted in 1938, stemmed from a comprehensive SEC study that disclosed widespread abuses under the then-existing provisions for business reorganizations. See Securities and Exchange Commission, Report on the Study and Investigation of the Work, Activities, Personnel and Functions of Protective and Reorganization Committees (1937-1940). This same study gave birth the following year to the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, 53 Stat. 1149, 15 U. S. C. § 77aaa et seq., which is discussed infra.
In enacting Chapter X, Congress had protection of public investors primarily in mind. SEC v. American Trailer Rentals Co., 379 U. S. 594 (1965). “The aims of Chapter X... were to afford greater protection to creditors and stockholders by providing greater judicial control over the entire proceedings and impartial and expert administrative assistance in corporate reorganizations through appointment of a disinterested trustee and the active participation of the SEC.” Id., at 604. In contradistinction to a bankruptcy proceeding where liquidation of a corporation and distribution of its assets is the goal, a Chapter X proceeding is for purposes of rehabilitating the corporation and reorganizing it. Ibid. Chapter X proceedings are not limited to insolvent corporations but are open to those corporations that are solvent in the bankruptcy (asset-liability) sense but are unable to meet their obligations as they mature. United States v. Key, 397 U. S. 322, 329 (1970); 11 U. S. C. §530 (1).
The trustee in reorganization is the center of the statutory scheme. H. R. Rep. No. 1409, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., 43, 44. Title 11 U. S. C. § 567 gives the trustee broad powers:
“The trustee upon his appointment and qualification—
“(1) shall, if the judge shall so direct, forthwith investigate the acts, conduct, property, liabilities, and financial condition of the debtor, the operation of its business and the desirability of the continuance thereof, and any other matter relevant to the proceeding or to the formulation of a plan, and report thereon to the judge;
“(2) may, if the judge shall so direct, examine the directors and officers of the debtor and any other witnesses concerning the foregoing matters or any of them;
“(3) shall report to the judge any facts ascertained by him pertaining to fraud, misconduct, mismanagement and irregularities, and to any causes of action available to the estate;
“(5) shall, at the earliest date practicable, prepare and submit a brief statement of his investigation of the property, liabilities, and financial condition of the debtor, the operation of its business and the desirability of the continuance thereof, in such form and manner as the judge may direct, to the creditors, stockholders, indenture trustees, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and such other persons as the judge may designate; and
“(6) shall give notice to the creditors and stockholders that they may submit to him suggestions for the formulation of a plan, or proposals in the form of plans, within a time therein named.”
Title 11 U. S. C. § 587 expands these powers:
“Where not inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter, a trustee, upon his appointment and qualification, shall be vested with the same rights, be subject to the same duties, and exercise the same powers as a trustee appointed under section 72 of this title, and, if authorized by the judge, shall have and may exercise such additional rights and powers as a receiver in equity would have if appointed by a court of the United States for the property of the debtor.”
The powers given a trustee appointed under § 72 are set forth in a footnote.
Petitioner argues that these powers are broad enough to encompass a suit on behalf of debenture holders against an indenture trustee who has acted in bad faith, and who has, therefore, violated the indenture and the Trust Indenture Act of 1939-, 15 U. S. C. § 77aaa et seg.
As pointed out above, the Trust Indenture Act was passed one year after Chapter X was enacted. Prior to its enactment, indenture trustees immunized themselves from any liability for either deliberate or negligent misconduct by writing exculpatory provisions into the indenture. Even in cases where misconduct by the indenture trustee was the proximate cause of injury to debenture holders, they found themselves impotent under the terms of most indentures to take action against the trustee. See generally 2 L. Loss, Securities Regulation 719-725 (2d ed. 1961). This problem and others are specifically mentioned in 15 U. S. C. § 77bbb as establishing a necessity for regulation.
The regulation provided by the Act takes many forms. 15 U. S. C. § 77eee requires that whenever securities covered by the Trust Indenture Act are also covered by the registration provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, 48 Stat. 74, 15 U. S. C. § 77a et seg., certain information about the indenture trustee and the terms of the indenture must be included in the registration statement. Title 15 U. S. C. § 77ggg provides that when securities are not registered under the 1933 Act but are covered by the Trust Indenture Act, the indenture must be “qualified” by the SEC before it is legal to sell the securities. Standards for eligibility and disqualification of a trustee are established by 15 U. S. C. § 77jjj, and the duties and responsibilities of a trustee are enumerated in 15 U. S. C. § 77ooo.
The indenture giving rise to this litigation was qualified by the SEC pursuant to the Trust Indenture Act of 1939. By alleging that the indenture trustee negligently or intentionally failed to prevent Webb & Knapp from violating the terms of the indenture, petitioner clearly alleges a violation of the 1939 legislation, 15 U. S. C. § 77ooo. But the question remains whether petitioner is a proper party to take corrective action.
Petitioner urges that the reorganization trustee is in a far better position than debt investors to discover and to prosecute claims based on the alleged failure of an indenture trustee to live up to the provisions of the indenture. He points to 11 U. S. C. § 567, set forth supra, and emphasizes that not only does the reorganization trustee have possession of the records of the debtor, but he also has a statutory duty to investigate the debtor’s affairs and to “report to the judge any facts ascertained by him pertaining to fraud, misconduct, mismanagement and irregularities, and to any causes of action available to the estate.” Reference is made, too, to 15 U. S. C. § 77bbb (a)(1), which states that one of the problems Congress saw with respect to misconduct by indenture trustees was that “(A) individual action by... investors for the purpose of protecting and enforcing their rights is rendered impracticable by reason of the disproportionate expense of taking such action, and (B) concerted action by such investors in their common interest through representatives of their own selection is impeded by reason of the wide dispersion of such investors through many States, and by reason of the fact that information as to the names and addresses of such investors generally is not available to such investors.”
Finally, petitioner asserts that to give him standing to sue on behalf of debenture holders will not encourage vexatious litigation or unduly deplete the resources of the debtor that he has been appointed to reorganize. He supports the first half of this proposition by noting that any action he takes is subject to the supervision of the District Court and to intervention by the SEC. The second half of the proposition finds support in the argument discussed above that petitioner already has a duty of investigation and that the minimal additional burden of prosecuting a lawsuit will not be great.
At first blush, petitioner’s theory, adopted in the opinion of the dissenters in the Court of Appeals, seems reasonable. But, there are three problems with petitioner’s argument and these problems require that his position be rejected.
First, Congress has established an elaborate system of controls with respect to indenture trustees and reorganization proceedings, and nowhere in the statutory scheme is there any suggestion that the trustee in reorganization is to assume the responsibility of suing third parties on behalf of debenture holders. The language, in fact, indicates that Congress had no such intent in mind. The statute, 11 U. S. C. § 567 (3), gives the trustee the right, and indeed imposes the duty, to investigate fraud and misconduct.and to report to the judge the potential causes of action “available to the estate.” Even assuming that this section is read as if the quoted words were not present, and that it authorizes a trustee in reorganization to report whether he believes an indenture trustee has violated a duty to third-party debenture holders, there is nothing in the section that enables him to collect money not owed to the estate. Nor is there anything in 11 U. S. C. § 110, set forth in relevant part in footnote 14, supra, that gives him this authority. His task is simply to “collect and reduce to money the property of the estates for which [he is trustee].” 11 U. S. C. § 75.
The only support petitioner finds in the relevant statutes is in that portion of 11 U. S. C. § 587 which gives reorganization trustees the additional rights that a “receiver in equity would have if appointed by a court of the United States for the property of the debtor.” Petitioner relies on McCandless v. Furlaud, 296 U. S. 140 (1935), to support the proposition that a receiver in equity may sue third parties on behalf of bondholders. But, the opinion of the Court by Mr. Justice Cardozo clearly emphasizes that the receiver in that case was suing on behalf of the corporation, not third parties; he was simply stating the same claim that the corporation could have made had it brought suit prior to entering receivership. The debtor corporation makes no such claim in this case. See generally 2 It. Clark, Law and Practice of Receivers § 362, at 619 (3d ed. 1959).
This brings us to the second problem with petitioner’s argument. Nowhere does petitioner argue that Webb & Knapp could make any claim against Marine. Indeed, the conspicuous silence on this point is a tacit admission that no such claim could be made. Assuming that petitioner’s allegations of misconduct on the part of the indenture trustee are true, petitioner has at most described a situation where Webb & Knapp and Marine were in pari delicto. Whatever damage the debenture holders suffered, under petitioner’s theory Webb & Knapp is as much at fault as Marine, if not more so. A question would arise, therefore, whether Marine would be entitled to be subrogated to the claims of the debenture holders. The Court of Appeals thought that subrogation would be required, 439 F. 2d, at 122.
If the Court of Appeals is correct, it is then difficult to see what advantage there is in giving petitioner standing to sue, for as Chief Judge Friendly noted in his opinion for the court below:
“It is necessary in the first instance to consider what effect a recovery by the Chapter X Trustee would have on the reorganization. On a superficial view this might seem substantial — if, for example, the Chapter X Trustee were to achieve a complete recovery, the debenture holders would be paid off and it might seem there would be that much more for the other creditors and the stockholders. But this pleasant prospect speedily evaporates when the law of subrogation is brought into play. As a result of subrogation, Marine would simply be substituted for the debenture holders as the claimant. Cf. ALI, Restatement of Security § 141 (1941). If the Chapter X Trustee recovered judgment in a lesser amount, the claim of the debenture holders would still be provable in full, with the division of the proceeds between them and Marine dependent upon the results of the reorganization, and other creditors or stockholders would not be affected.” 439 F. 2d, at 122.
Even if the Court of Appeals is incorrect in its view of the propriety of subrogation under the facts of this case, the fact remains that in every reorganization there is going to be a question of how much the trustee in reorganization should be permitted to recover on behalf of the debenture holders. The answer is, of course, whatever he cannot recoup from the corporation. Once this is recognized, the wisdom of Judge Augustus Hand in Clarke v. Chase National Bank, 137 F. 2d, at 800, becomes readily apparent:
“Each creditor, including the debenture-holders, can prove the full amount of his claim, and only to the extent that a debenture-holder fails to satisfy it from the bankruptcy estate will he suffer a loss which he can assert against the defendant through its failure to enforce the negative covenants.”
In other words, debenture holders will not be able to recover damages from the indenture trustee until the reorganization is far enough along so that a reasonable approximation can be made as to the extent of their losses, if any. It is difficult to see precisely why it is at that point that the trustee in reorganization should represent the interests of the debenture holders, who are capable of deciding for themselves whether or not it is worthwhile to seek to recoup whatever losses they may have suffered by an action against the indenture trustee. Petitioner appears to concede that any suit by debenture holders would not affect the interests of other parties to the reorganization, assuming that the Court of Appeals is correct on the subrogation point. It would seem, therefore, that the debenture holders, the persons truly affected by the suit against Marine, should make their own assessment of the respective advantages and disadvantages, not only of litigation, but of various theories of litigation.
This brings us to the third problem with petitioner’s argument: i. e., a suit by him on behalf of debenture holders may be inconsistent with any independent actions that they might bring themselves. Petitioner and the SEC make very plain their position that a suit by the trustee in reorganization does not pre-empt suits by individual debenture holders. They maintain, however, that it would be unlikely that such suits would be brought since the debenture holders could reasonably expect that the trustee would vigorously prosecute the claims of all debt investors. But, independent actions are still likely because it is extremely doubtful that the trustee and all debenture holders would agree on the amount of damages to seek, or even on the theory on which to sue. Moreover, if the indenture trustee wins the suit brought by the trustee in reorganization, unless the debenture holders are bound by that victory, the proliferation of litigation that petitioner seeks to avoid would then ensue. Finally, a question would arise as to who was bound by any settlement.
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides for class actions, avoids some of these difficulties. It is surely a powerful remedy and one that is available to all debenture holders. Some of the factors that formerly deterred such actions have been changed by the Trust Indenture Act of 1939. Title 15 U. S. C. § 77III, for example, now requires that the debtor corporation maintain lists of debenture holders that it must turn over to the indenture trustees at regular intervals. Such lists are available to the individual debenture holders upon request. Debenture holders would also be able to take advantage of any information obtained by the trustee in reorganization as a result of the investigation which the statute requires that he make. In addition, petitioner himself maintains that counsel fees would be recoverable if the action was successful. Brief for Petitioner 20; cf. 15 U. S. C. § 77nnn.
Thus, there is no showing whatever that by giving petitioner standing to sue on behalf of the debenture holders we would reduce litigation. On the contrary, there is every indication that litigation would be increased, or at least complicated.
Ill
For the reasons discussed above we conclude that petitioner does not have standing to sue an indenture trustee on behalf of debenture holders. This does not mean that it would be unwise to confer such standing on trustees in reorganization. It simply signifies that Congress has not yet indicated even a scintilla of an intention to do so, and that such a policy decision must be left to Congress and not to the judiciary.
Congress might well decide that reorganizations have not fared badly in the 34 years since Chapter X was enacted and that the status quo is preferable to inviting new problems by making changes in the system. Or, Congress could determine that the trustee in a reorganization was so well situated for bringing suits against indenture trustees that he should be permitted to do so. In this event, Congress might also determine that the trustee’s action was exclusive, or that it should be brought as a class action on behalf of all debenture holders, or perhaps even that the debenture holders should have the option of suing on their own or having the trustee sue on their behalf. Any number of alternatives are available. Congress would also be able to answer questions regarding subrogation or timing of law suits before these questions arise in the context of litigation. Whatever the decision, it is one that only Congress can make.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
The District Court delivered three separate opinions in this case. They are unreported, but are included in the appendix prepared by the parties at 58a-70a. The Court of Appeals heard the case en banc after a panel of three judges determined that it was inclined to overrule the case on which the District Court had placed almost exclusive reliance. 439 F. 2d 118.
Those companies in the affiliated group include any corporation that was entitled to be included in a consolidated tax return of Webb & Knapp. See 26 U. S. C. § 1602. Section 1.1 of the Indenture gave Webb & Knapp authority to consider other companies as affiliates if it chose to do so.
Indenture of June 1, 1954, Webb &, Knapp, Inc., to the Marine Midland Trust Company of New York § 3.6 (hereinafter referred to as Indenture).
Indenture § 3.11.
Indenture § 10.1 (a). This was also a statutory duty. See 15 U. S. C. § 77ooo.
Indenture § 10.1 (d).
Webb & Knapp showed a loss for tax purposes each year, although the company did show a gain on its books for 1961 attributable to a write-up of property owned by a wholly owned subsidiary of a company in which Webb & Knapp held 50% of the stock.
The SEC has supported petitioner throughout this litigation. The agency is “an unnamed respondent before this Court.” See Protective Committee v. Anderson, 390 U. S. 414, 420 n. 3 (1968). When referring to arguments made by petitioner, this opinion assumes, unless otherwise stated, that the SEC has made the same arguments.
The difference between this amount and the amount of the debentures originally issued represents the amount of the principal that Webb & Knapp had repaid.
These are merely allegations of petitioner, not findings of the lower courts. Because the District Court and the Court of Appeals held that petitioner had no standing, they had no occasion to consider the validity of the allegations.
In its capacity as indenture trustee, Marine also filed a nlaim on behalf of all the debenture holders for the unpaid principal on the debentures.
This objection differs from the other claims in one respect: i. e., it is an attempt to preserve the remaining assets of the debtor for all creditors other than Marine, whereas the other claims represent an attempt by the petitioner to increase the assets of the debtor for the benefit of a specific class of creditors, the- debenture holders. Although Marine appealed' the ruling of the District Court denying its motion to strike the objection, it did not seek review here of the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the District Court on this issue. This issue is, therefore, not before us, and we offer no opinion on the propriety of the lower courts’ ruling.
Petitioner and the two dissenting judges in the Court of Appeals argue that the issue was presented in Prudence-Bonds Corp. v. State Street Trust Co., 202 F. 2d 555 (CA2), cert. denied, 346 U. S. 835 (1953), and that the decision of the court in that case by Judge Learned Hand overruled Clarke v. Chase National Bank, 137 F. 2d 797 (CA2 1943), sub silentio. They also argue that the issue was presented and decided contrary to Clarke in In re Solar Manufacturing Corp., 200 F. 2d 327 (CA3 1952), cert. denied sub nom. Marine Midland Trust Co. v. McGirl, 345 U. S. 940 (1953). But, the majority of the Court of Appeals found these cases to be distinguishable, and Marine urges that the majority was correct. We do not intend to become enmeshed in this controversy and merely indicate its existence.
Title 11 U. S. C. § 110 gives the trustee title to the following “property”:
“(a) The trustee of the estate of a bankrupt and his successor or successors, if any, upon his or their appointment and qualification, shall in turn be vested by operation of law with the title of the bankrupt as of the date of the filing of the petition initiating a proceeding under this title... to all of the following kinds of property wherever located (1) documents relating to his property; (2) interests in patents, patent rights, copyrights, and trade-marks, and in applications therefor... (3) powers which he might have exercised for his own benefit, but not those which he might have exercised solely for some other person; (4) property transferred by him in fraud of his creditors; (5) property, including rights of action, which prior to the filing of the petition he could by any means have transferred or which might have been levied upon and sold under judicial process against him, or otherwise seized, impounded, or sequestered... (6) rights of action arising upon contracts, or usury, or the unlawful taking or detention of or injury to his property; (7) contingent remainders, executory devises and limitations, rights of entry for condition broken, rights or possibilities of reverter, and like interests in real property, which were nonassignable prior to bankruptcy and which, within six months thereafter, become assignable interests or estates or give rise to powers in the bankrupt to acquire assignable interests or estates; and (8) property held by an assignee for the benefit of creditors appointed under an assignment which constituted an act of bankruptcy, which property shall, for the purposes of this title, be deemed to be held by the assignee as the agent of the bankrupt and shall be subject to the summary jurisdiction of the court.”
The SEC is given general supervisory powers over indentures in various sections of the Trust Indenture Act. See, e. g., 15 U. S. C. §§ 77ddd (c), (d), (e); 77eee (a), (c); 77ggg; 77sss; 77ttt; 77uuu. In addition, 15 U. S. C. § 77hhh provides that the SEC may order consolidation of reports or certificates filed under the Trust Indenture Act with information or documents filed under the Securities Act of 1933, 48 Stat. 74, 15 U. S. C. § 77a et seq., and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 881, 15 U. S. C. § 78a et seq., the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, 49 Stat. 838, 15 U. S. C. § 79 et seq.
The provisions of the indenture discussed previously comply with the requirements of 15 U. S. C. § llooo. While the indenture trustee is not permitted by the statute to exculpate himself from liability for noncompliance with the indenture, the indenture trustee may rely in good faith on certificates or reports filed pursuant to the indenture and in compliance with the provisions thereof.
We assume, arguendo, that violation of 15 U.'S. C. § llooo would give rise to a cause of action against an indenture trustee by debenture holders. If there is a cause of action, 15 U. S. C. § 77vw would seem to give federal courts jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals inferred that such suits would be proper, 439 F. 2d, at 123 n. 5, but did not decide the point. Since we conclude that even if such suits may be brought, petitioner lacks standing to bring them, we do not decide the question.
It should be noted that the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 was enacted on August 3, 1939. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were not even one year old. They were adopted by this Court on December 20, 1937, and they became effective on September 16, 1938, 308 U. S. 647. The class action was a comparatively recent phenomenon with respect to damage actions and it was not tremendously helpful in the early days. See, e. g., Moore, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Some Problems Raised by the Preliminary Draft, 25 Geo. L. J. 551, 570-576 (1937); Kalven & Rosenfield, The Contemporary Function of the Class Suit, 8 U. Chi. L. Rev. 684 (1941). It could not be said that the class action was an efficacious remedy in 1939.
This point is especially clear in light of the fact that the Court split 5-4 on whether Old Dominion Copper Co. v. Lewisohn, 210 U. S. 206 (1908) (Holmes, J.), was binding in McCandless v. Fur-laud. The issue in the controversial Old Dominion case was whether a corporation - had a cause of action against promoter-director-stoekholders.
If petitioner could sue on behalf of Webb & Knapp, the statute that requires that he report possible causes of action to the court would require mention of this cause of action. Moreover, petitioner has brought every conceivable claim that is available to him as trustee. Not only has he brought this action against the indenture trustee, but he has also sued former officers of Webb & Knapp charging them with waste. Brief for SEC 5-6. Certain settlements have apparently been made in some of these other actions. Brief for Respondent 45 n. 18.
Three private actions have been brought by debenture holders against Marine, one in federal court and two in state court. See Brief for Petitioner 21 n. 9. These suits make the same claims made by the petitioner in the instant case, as well as others which he has not made, including alleged violations of the securities laws.
The trustee may well have interests that differ from those of the bondholders. For example, petitioner has sued not only Marine, but also the former officers of Webb & Knapp. See n. 20, supra. In settling the suits brought against the officers, petitioner may well take positions that conflict with those he would take in a suit against Marine. The conflict may at times be unfavorable to the debenture holders. One answer obviously is that the District Court and the SEC can take action to prevent any such conflict from developing, e. g., by denying the trustee in reorganization the right to sue on behalf of debenture holders in selected cases. The problem with this answer is that the conflict may not appear until the suit is well under way. In such a case the debenture holders might regret placing their confidence in the trustee.
Chapter X, 11 U. S. C. §616 (2), provides that a plan for reorganization “may deal with all or any part of the property of the debtor.” It also provides that the plan “may include provisions for the settlement or adjustment of claims belonging to the debtor
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Me. Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioners seek review of a decision of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit holding that a claim brought by petitioner Dortha Guy under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was barred by her failure to file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within the statutory limitations period. They present three contentions: The existence and utilization of grievance procedures postpone the date on which an allegedly discriminatory firing took place; the existence and utilization of grievance procedures toll the running of the limitations period which would otherwise begin on the date of the firing; and the 1972 amendments to Title VII, Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, 86 Stat. 103 (Mar. 24, 1972), extending the limitations period from 90 to 180 days, apply to the charge in this case.
I
Respondent Robbins & Myers, Inc. (hereinafter respondent), terminated the employment of petitioner Guy on October 25, 1971, and assigned as its reason for doing so her failure to comply with procedures contained in the collective-bargaining agreement pertaining to leaves of absence. Two days later petitioner caused a grievance alleging an “unfair action” of the company in firing her to be filed on her behalf in accordance with the provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement then in force between petitioner Local 790 of the International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers (Local 790) and respondent. That agreement’s dispute-resolution procedure, which is to be commenced within “five (5) working days of the commission of the act originating the grievance,” consists of three grievance steps followed by one arbitration step. Guy’s grievance was processed through the third step of the grievance procedure where it was denied on November 18, 1971, with the finding that her termination had been in accordance with the provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement.
On February 10, 1972, a date 84 days after the denial of her grievance at the third stage, but 108 days after the date of her discharge, Guy, who is black, filed a charge of racial discrimination with the EEOC directed against both respondent and Local 790. The EEOC in November 1973 issued its determination and “right to sue” letter, finding that there was “no reason to believe that race was a factor in the decision to discharge” Guy. Her suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee under 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5, was met by a motion to dismiss on the ground, inter alia, that it was barred because of her failure to file a charge with the EEOC within 90 days of her discharge, § 706 (d), 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5 (d). The District Court dismissed her action, and the Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment by a divided vote, 525 F. 2d 124 (1975). That court felt that it would be “utterly inconsistent” with our opinions in Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, 421 U. S. 454 (1975) and in Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U. S. 36 (1974), to hold that the pursuit of a contractual grievance procedure operates to toll a Title VII remedy “which the employee has a right to resort to concurrently.” 525 F. 2d, at 126. Then, noting the question of the applicability of the 1972 amendments to Title VII raised by the EEOC as amicus curiae (also noting without more that “[s]ince this issue was not raised in the District Court by any party to the case, we are not required to consider it”), the Court of Appeals stated:
“Plaintiff Guy’s claim was barred on January 24, 1972. She did not file her charge with EEOC until February 10, 1972. The amendments to Title VII, increasing the time within which to file her charge to 180 days, did not become effective until March 24, 1972. 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5 (e) [1970 ed., Supp. V], The subsequent increase of time to file the charge enacted by Congress could not revive plaintiff’s claim which had been previously barred and extinguished.” 525 F. 2d, at 128.
The dissenting judge disagreed on this point, believing that the case should be remanded for consideration of the effect of the 1972 amendments.
We granted certiorari, 425 U. S. 950, to resolve an apparent Circuit conflict on two of these issues: tolling during the pendency of a collective-bargaining-contract’s grievance mechanism, and the applicability of the 1972 amendments to charges filed more than 90 days from the date of the alleged discriminatory act but less than 180 days before the time the amendments became effective.
II
Before reaching either of those questions, however, petitioners Guy and Local 790 assert that the complaint with the EEOC was timely filed, not because of any tolling concept, but simply because the date “the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred” is the date of the conclusion of the collective-bargaining agreement’s grievance-arbitration procedures. Until that time, we are told, the October 25 discharge of Guy (although itself an “occurrence” allowing immediate resort to the EEOC) was “tentative” and “non-final,” and remained so until she terminated the grievance and arbitration process, at which time the “final” occurrence transpired. As a consequence, according to petitioners, the unfavorable termination of the grievance procedures, making the discharge “final,” constituted an “occurrence” enabling Guy to start the 90-day period running from that date.
While the parties could conceivably have agreed to a contract under which management’s ultimate adoption of a supervisor’s recommendation would be deemed the relevant statutory “occurrence,” this was not such a contract. For all that appears Guy was fired as of October 25, 1971, and all parties so understood. She stopped work and ceased receiving pay and benefits as of that date. Unless the grievanee procedures resulted in her reinstatement, she would not be entitled to be paid for the period during which the grievance procedures were being implemented. The grievance lodged on October 27, 1971, protests the “unfair action of Co. for discharge” (emphasis added), while the complaint filed in the District Court alleges Guy’s disagreement, after learning of her discharge, “with the Company’s determination that she had Voluntarily quit,”’ (emphasis added). Throughout the proceedings both in the District Court and in the Court of Appeals, both sides appear to have assumed, as did the courts, that the date of discharge was October 25, 1971. There being no indication that either party viewed the October 25 discharge as anything other than “final,” there is certainly no reason for us to now torture this mutual understanding by accepting the bare assertions to the contrary raised by petitioners for the first time before this Court.
Ill
We think that petitioners’ arguments for tolling the statutory period for filing a claim with the EEOC during the pendency of grievance or arbitration procedures under the collective-bargaining contract are virtually foreclosed by our decisions in Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U. S. 36 (1974), and in Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, 421 U. S. 454 (1975). In Alexander we held that an arbitrator’s decision pursuant to provisions in a collective-bargaining contract was not binding on an individual seeking to pursue his Title VII remedies in court. We reasoned that the contractual rights under a collective-bargaining agreement and the statutory right provided by Congress under Title VII “have legally independent origins and are equally available to the aggrieved employee,” 415 U. S., at 52, and for that reason we concluded:
“[I]n instituting an action under Title VII, the employee is not seeking review of the arbitrator’s decision. Rather, he is asserting a statutory right independent of the arbitration process.” Id., at 54.
One Term later, we reaffirmed the independence of Title VII remedies from other pre-existing remedies available to an aggrieved employee. In Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, we held that the timely filing of a charge with the EEOC pursuant to § 706 of Title VII did not toll the running of the statute of limitations applicable to an action, based on the same facts, brought under 42 U. S. C. § 1981. In reaffirming the independence of Title VII remedies from other remedies, we noted that such independence might occasionally be a two-edged sword, but “in the face of congressional emphasis upon the existence and independence of the two remedies,” we were disinclined “to infer any positive preference for one over the other, without a more definite expression in the legislation Congress has enacted,” 421 U. S., at 461.
Petitioners insist that notwithstanding these decisions, equitable tolling principles should be applied to this litigation, and that the application of such principles would toll the 90-day period pending completion of the grievance procedures. This is so, they say, because here the “policy of repose, designed to protect defendants,” Burnett v. New York Central R. Co., 380 U. S. 424, 428 (1965), is “outweighed [because] the interests of justice require vindication of the plaintiff’s rights.”
But this is quite a different situation from Burnett, supra. There the plaintiff in a Federal Employers’ Liability Act action had asserted his FELA claim in the state courts, which had concurrent jurisdiction with the federal courts, but he had the misfortune of filing his complaint in an Ohio State court where venue did not lie under Ohio law. This Court held that such a filing was sufficient to toll the statutory limitations period, even though the state-court action was dismissed for improper venue and a new complaint ultimately filed in the United States District Court. The Court said:
“Petitioner here did not sleep on his rights but brought an action within the statutory period in a state court of competent jurisdiction. Service of process was made upon the respondent notifying him that petitioner was asserting his cause of action.” Id., at 429.
Here petitioner Guy in the grievance proceedings was not asserting the same statutory claim in a different forum, nor giving notice to respondent of that statutory claim, but was asserting an independent claim based on a contract right, Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., supra, at 53-54, 56-58. Burnett cannot aid this petitioner, see Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, supra, at 467, and n. 14.
Petitioners advance as a corollary argument for tolling the premise that substantial policy considerations, based on the central role of arbitration in labor-management relations, see Steelworkers v. American Mfg. Co., 363 U. S. 564 (1960); Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U. S. 448 (1957), also dictate a finding that the Title VII limitations period is tolled in this situation. Similar arguments by the employer in Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., urging the superiority and pre-eminence of the arbitration process were rejected by us in that case, and we find the reasoning of that case controlling in rejecting this claim made by petitioners.
Petitioners also advance a related argument that the danger of possible conflict between the concurrent pursuit of both collective-bargaining and Title VII remedies should result in tolling the limitations period for the latter while the former proceeds to conclusion. Similar arguments to these, albeit relating to 42 U. S. C. § 1981 and not to private labor agreements, were however, raised and rejected in Johnson. We think the language we used in that case is sufficient to dispose of this claim:
“[I]t is conceivable, and perhaps almost to be expected, that failure to toll will have the effect of pressing a civil rights complainant who values his § 1981 claim into court before the EEOC has completed its administrative proceeding. One answer to this, although perhaps not a highly satisfactory one, is that the plaintiff in his § 1981 suit may ask the court to stay proceedings until the administrative efforts at conciliation and voluntary compliance have been completed. But the fundamental answer to petitioner’s argument lies in the fact — presumably a happy one for the civil rights claimant — that Congress clearly has retained § 1981 as a remedy against private employment discrimination separate from and independent of the more elaborate and time-consuming procedures of Title VII.” 421 U. S., at 465-466.
Petitioners contend at some length that tolling would impose almost no costs, as the delays occasioned by the grievance-arbitration process would be "slight,” noting that the maximum delay in invoking the three-stage grievance procedure (although not including the arbitration step) under the collective-bargaining agreement in force in this case would be 35 days. But the principal answer to this contention is that Congress has already spoken with respect to what it considers acceptable delay when it established a 90-day limitations period, and gave no indication that it considered a “slight” delay followed by 90 days equally acceptable. In defining Title VII's jurisdictional prerequisites “with precision,” Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U. S., at 47, Congress did not leave to courts the decision as to which delays might or might not be “slight.”
Congress did provide in § 706 (b) one exception for this 90-day limitations period, when it provided that the limitations period should run for a maximum additional 120 days when there existed “a State or local law prohibiting the. unlawful employment practice alleged and establishing or authorizing a State or local authority to grant or seek relief from such practice or to institute criminal proceedings with respect thereto upon receiving notice thereof.” Where Congress has spoken with respect to a claim much more closely related to the Title VII claim than is the contractual claim pursued under the grievance procedure, and then firmly limited the maximum possible extension of the limitations period applicable thereto, we think that all of petitioners' arguments taken together simply do not carry sufficient weight to overcome the negative implication from the language used by Congress, cf. Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, 421 U. S., at 461.
IV
Guy filed her charge with the EEOC on February 10, 1972, 108 days after her October 25, 1971, discharge. On March 24, 1972, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, 86 Stat. 103, extended to 180 days the time within which to file a claim with the EEOC, § 706 (e). Petitioners contend that this expanded limitations period should apply to Guy’s charge, as the occurrence she was complaining of took place within 180 days of the enactment of the 1972 amendments. We agree.
Section 14 of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, 86 Stat. 113, states:
“The amendments made by this Act to section 706 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 shall be applicable with respect to charges pending with the Commission on the date of enactment of this Act and all charges filed thereafter.”
Respondent asserts that § 14, which was added by amendment to the bill on the floor of the House by Senator Javits, 118 Cong. Rec. 4816 (1972), was designed for the sole purpose of having the new enforcement powers given to the EEOC apply to pending charges, see letter of Feb, 14, 1972, from David L. Norman, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, to Senator Dominick, quoted in EEOC v. Christiansburg Garment Co., 376 F. Supp. 1067, 1074 (WD Va. 1974). However, the explicit statutory language used applies to all amendments made by the Act to § 706, not simply to the new enforcement provisions. As Senator Javits did not limit his remarks on the floor so as to indicate that § 14’s retroactivity was designed to apply only to the new enforcement provisions, the legislative history does not make this one of those unusual cases in which a court may infer, contrary to the language actually used, that Congress intended to so limit the scope of § 14, cf. also S. Rep. No. 91-1137, p. 31 (1970).
Respondent also contends that the amendment is not applicable to the charge filed by Guy with the EEOC, since, being untimely when filed, her charge could not have been “pending with the Commission on the date of enactment of this Act.” This reading of “pending” — confining it to charges still before the Commission and timely when filed — is not the only possible meaning of the word, is largely rebutted by the legislative history, and renders the language of § 14 virtually meaningless insofar as the enlarged limitations period is concerned. Since Congress also applied the enlarged limitations period to charges, whether or not untimely on March 24, “filed thereafter,” we should not presume Congress created this odd hiatus in retroactivity suggested by respondent unless congressional intent to do so was conveyed by language more precise than “pending,” cf. Love v. Pullman Co., 404 U. S. 522 (1972). “Pending” is simply not a term of art that unambiguously carries with it a meaning precisely suited for this situation; equally logical, for example, would be an interpretation that read “pending” to mean “filed and not yet rejected,” cf. Leg. Hist., supra, n. 16, at 1851. We hold that Congress intended the 180-day period to be applicable to charges such as that filed by Guy, where the charge was filed with the EEOC prior to March 24, 1972, and alleged a discriminatory occurrence within 180 days of the enactment of the Act.
Respondent contends, finally, that Congress was without constitutional power to revive, by enactment, an action which, when filed, is already barred by the running of a limitations period. This contention rests on an unwarrantedly broad reading of our opinion in William Danzer Co. v. Gulf & Ship Island R. Co., 268 U. S. 633 (1925). Danzer was given a narrow reading in the later case of Chase Securities Corp. v. Donaldson, 325 U. S. 304, 312 n. 8 (1945). The latter case states the applicable constitutional test in this language:
“The Fourteenth Amendment does not make an act of state legislation void merely because it has some retrospective operation. What it does forbid is taking of life, liberty or property without due process of law. . . . Assuming that statutes of limitation, like other types of legislation, could be so manipulated that their retroactive effects would offend the Constitution, certainly it cannot be said that lifting the bar of a statute of limitation so as to restore a remedy lost through mere lapse of time is per se an offense against the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id., at 315-316.
Applying that test to this litigation, we think that Congress might constitutionally provide for retroactive application of the extended limitations period which it enacted.
We thus resolve against petitioners their first two contentions, but resolve the third in their favor. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is therefore reversed, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Mr. Justice Brennan, Mr. Justice Stewart, Mr. Justice Marshall, and Mr. Justice Stevens agree that the expanded 180-day limitations period enacted by 86 Stat. 103 applied to Guy’s charge and would reverse the Court of Appeals on that ground without addressing the questions discussed in Parts II and III of the Court’s opinion.
At the time of her discharge, and at the time the charge was filed with the EEOC, § 706 (d) stated, in pertinent part: “A charge under subsection (a) of this section shall be filed within ninety days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred. . . .” Section 706 (d) was renumbered as §706 (e), 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5 (e) (1970 ed., Supp. V), as a result of the 1972 amendments to the Act. Whenever § 706 (d) is cited in this opinion, it refers to the pre-1972 version of what is now §706 (e).
Guy also alleged a cause ’of action under 42 U. S. C. § 1981. By order dated May 30, 1974, the District Court dismissed this cause of action because of a failure to meet the applicable Tennessee statute of limitations. No appeal was taken from this decision.
The question of the tolling of Title VII’s limitations period during the pendency of grievance proceedings was noted in our opinion in McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co., 427 U. S. 273, 277-278 (1976), but had not been decided in the lower courts, and was not presented for us to decide.
This assertion, which is also adopted by the EEOC as amicus curiae, is premised on the proposition that “[u]se of the grievance resolution process is not an ‘appeal’ of a ‘final’ decision, but is a method of obtaining the judgment of higher management on whether the employee should be retained,” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 21; Brief for Petitioner Local 790, pp. 17-18.
Tr. of Oral Arg. 14. Nor is there any indication that, should the grievance mechanism not be utilized, any sort of “formalized” final determination by management was required before Guy’s discharge would have been considered final. As the EEOC acknowledges, “the employer’s foremen usually can fire an individual employee such as Guy,” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 19.
Even while raising the contrary arguments in their briefs before this Court, petitioners place the October 25 discharge as the action of respondent. See, e. g., Brief for Petitioner Local 790, p. 4 (“The following day [October 25, 1971) the Company discharged her on the ground that she had not complied with procedures embodied in the collective bargaining agreement pertaining to return from leaves of absence”); Brief for Petitioner Guy 5 (“The Company discharged Guy on October 25 for having 'voluntarily quit’ ”).
At oral argument, we were told that while this assertion was not articulated as a separate argument before the Court of Appeals, pertinent language in Moore v. Sunbeam Corp., 459 F. 2d 811 (CA7 1972), was cited to that court, Tr. of Oral Arg. 11-12. This is hardly a precise way to get an issue before a Court of Appeals, and there is no indication that the Court of Appeals recognized any such implicit contention, assuming, arguendo, that petitioners thought they were raising it.
See also 415 U. S., at 48-49: “Title VII was designed to supplement, rather than supplant, existing laws and institutions relating to employment discrimination.” We felt that the legislative history was quite clear in this respect, see, e. g., 110 Cong. Rec. 7205, 13650-13652 (1964); H. R. 9247, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971); H. R. Rep. No. 92-238 (1971); S. Rep. No. 92-415, p. 24 (1971).
“Conciliation and persuasion through the administrative process [e. g., Title VII], to be sure, often constitute a desirable approach to settlement of disputes based on sensitive and emotional charges of invidious employment discrimination. We recognize, too, that the filing of a lawsuit might tend to deter efforts at conciliation, that lack of success in the legal action could weaken the Commission’s efforts to induce voluntary compliance, and that a suit is privately oriented and narrow, rather than broad, in application, as successful conciliation tends to be. But these are the natural effects of the choice Congress has made available to the claimant by its conferring upon him independent administrative and judicial remedies. The choice is a valuable one,” 421 U. S., at 461.
In no way is this a situation in which a party has “been prevented from asserting” his or her rights, Burnett v. New York Central R. Co., 380 U. S., at 429. There is no assertion that Guy was “prevented” from filing a charge with the EEOC within 90 days of October 25,1971; indeed, it is conceded and even urged that .she could have filed it the following day, had she so wished.
We concluded in Johnson that “[o]nly where there is complete identity of the causes of action will the protections suggested by petitioner necessarily exist and will the courts have an opportunity to assess the influence of the policy of repose inherent in a limitation period,” 421 U. S., at 468 n. 14. See n. 14, infra.
Petitioners contend that the vast majority of collective-bargaining agreements have stringent time restrictions on the resolution of disputes through the grievance stages, see, e. g., Brief for Petitioner Local 790, pp. 38-39; see also Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 23 n. 13.
Even taken on its own ground, this argument is not unambiguously favorable to petitioners. If the collective-bargaining dispute-settlement procedures are as speedy as suggested, no real need for tolling has been shown. In the instant case, for example, at the conclusion of stage three of the grievance procedure, Guy still had 66 days in which to file a charge with the EEOC, and no reason has been advanced as to why this was not ample time.
Adherence to the limitations period assures prompt notification to the employer of a charge of an alleged violation of Title VII, see § 706 (b). The grievance process assures no such comparable notice. In the instant case, the grievance alleged only an “unfair action.” Even if racial discrimination is explicitly discussed, however, the grievance procedure properly involves only contractual questions, and would but fortuitously implicate the Title VII standards, Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U. S., at 53-54, 56-58; see also Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, 421 U. S., at 467-468, n. 14. Petitioners’ arguments respecting the policies behind private resolution of labor disputes through collective bargaining, moreover, apply equally to the arbitration stage as they do to the grievance stage, cf. Emporium Capwell Co. v. Community Org., 420 U. S. 50, 66-67 (1975) ; Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., supra, at 56, 59-60; Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerks, 398 U. S. 235 (1970). Yet, at the arbitration stage the assurance of but a “slight” delay is lacking.
Indeed, the comment of Senator Javits implied precisely the opposite: “MR. JAVITS. Mr. President, this amendment would make whatever we do enact into law applicable to pending cases. The Department of Justice has requested it in a letter to the minority leader; that is my reason for offering it.” 118 Cong. Rec. 4816 (1972).
Section 14 was stated to be designed to cover “charges filed with the Commission prior to the effective date of the Act," Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 92d Cong., 2d Sess., Legislative History of Equal Employment Act of 1972, p. 1851 (Comm. Print 1972); see. also id., at 1777.
Accordingly, we need not decide whether the enlarged limitations period also redounds to the benefit of persons who filed a charge more than 90, but less than 180, days from the date of the alleged “occurrence,” where the 180 days had run prior to March 24, 1972.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Me. Chief Justice Buegee
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This direct appeal from the District Court presents the question whether a Member of Congress may be prosecuted under 18 U. S. C. §§201 (c)(1), 201(g), for accepting a bribe in exchange for a promise relating to an official act. Appellee, a former United States Senator, was charged in five counts of a 10-count indictment. Counts one, three, five, and seven alleged that on four separate occasions, appellee, while he was a Senator and a member of the Senate Committee on Post Office and Civil Service,
“directly and indirectly, corruptly asked, solicited, sought, accepted, received and agreed to receive [sums]... in return for being influenced in his performance of official acts in respect to his action, vote, and decision on postage rate legislation which might at any time be pending before him in his official capacity... in violation of Sections 201 (c)(1) and 2, Title 18, United States Code.”
Count nine charged that appellee
“directly and indirectly, asked, demanded, exacted, solicited, sought, accepted, received and agreed to receive [a sum]... for and because of official acts performed by him in respect to his action, vote and decision on postage rate legislation which had been pending before him in his official capacity... in violation of Sections 201 (g) and 2, Title 18, United States Code.”
Before a trial date was set, the appellee moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground of immunity under the Speech or Debate Clause, Art. I, § 6, of the Constitution, which provides:
“[F]or any Speech or Debate in either House, they [Senators or Representatives] shall not be questioned in any other Place.”
After hearing argument, the District Court ruled from the bench:
“Gentlemen, based on the facts of this case, it is admitted by the Government that the five counts of the indictment which charge Senator Brewster relate to the acceptance of bribes in connection with the performance of a legislative function by a Senator of the United' States.
“It is the opinion of this Court that the immunity under the Speech and [sic] Debate Clause of the Constitution, particularly in view of the interpretation given that Clause by the Supreme Court in Johnson, shields Senator Brewster, constitutionally shields him from any prosecution for alleged bribery to perform a legislative act.
“I will, therefore, dismiss the odd counts of the indictment, 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9, as they apply to Senator Brewster.”
The United States filed a direct appeal to this Court, pursuant to 18 U. S. C. § 3731 (1964 ed., Supp. V). We postponed consideration of jurisdiction until hearing the case on the merits. 401 U. S. 935 (1971).
I
The United States asserts that this Court has jurisdiction under 18 U. S. C. § 3731 (1964 ed., Supp. V) to review the District Court’s dismissal of the indictment against appellee. Specifically, the United States urges that the District Court decision was either “a decision or judgment setting aside, or dismissing [an] indictment... or any count thereof, where such decision or judgment is based upon the invalidity or construction of the statute upon which the indictment... is founded” or a “decision or judgment sustaining a motion in bar, when the defendant has not been put in jeopardy.” If the District Court decision is correctly characterized by either of those descriptions, this Court has jurisdiction under the statute to hear the United States’ appeal.
In United States v. Knox, 396 U. S. 77 (1969), we considered a direct appeal by the United States from the dismissal of an indictment that charged the appellee in that case with violating 18 U. S. C. § 1001, a general criminal provision punishing fraudulent statements made to any federal agency. The appellee, Knox, had been accused of willfully understating the number of employees accepting wagers on his behalf when he filed a form that persons engaged in the business of accepting wagers were required by law to file. The District Court dismissed the counts charging violations of § 1001 on the ground that the appellee could not be prosecuted for failure to answer the wagering form correctly since his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination prevented prosecution for failure to file the form in any respect. We found jurisdiction under § 3731 to hear the appeal in Knox on the theory that the District Court had passed on the validity of the statute on which the indictment rested. 396 U. S., at 79 n. 2. The District Court in that case held that “§ 1001, as applied to this class of cases, is constitutionally invalid.” Ibid.
The counts of the indictment involved in the instant case were based on 18 U. S. C. § 201, a bribery statute. Section 201 applies to "public officials,” and that term is defined explicitly to include Members of Congress as well as other employees and officers of the United States. Subsections (c)(1) and (g) prohibit the accepting of a bribe in return for being influenced in or performing an official act. The ruling of the District Court here was that “the Speech [or] Debate Clause of the Constitution, particularly in view of the interpretation given... in Johnson, shields Senator Brewster... from any prosecution for alleged bribery to perform a legislative act.” Since § 201 applies only to bribery for the performance of official acts, the District Court’s ruling is that, as applied to Members of Congress, § 201 is constitutionally invalid.
Appellee argues that the action of the District Court was not “a decision or judgment setting aside, or dismissing” the indictment, but was instead a summary judgment on the merits. Appellee also argues that the District Court did not rule that § 201 could never be constitutionally applied to a Member of Congress, but that “based on the facts of this case” the statute could not be constitutionally applied. Under United States v. Sisson, 399 U. S. 267 (1970), an appeal does not lie from a decision that rests, not upon the sufficiency of the indictment alone, but upon extraneous facts. If an indictment is dismissed as a result of a stipulated fact or the showing of evidentiary facts outside the indictment, which facts would constitute a defense on the merits at trial, no appeal is available. See United States v. Findley, 439 F. 2d 970 (CA1 1971). Appellee claims that the District Court relied on factual matter other than facts alleged in the indictment.
An examination of the record, however, discloses that, with the exception of a letter in which the United States briefly outlined the theory of its ease against appellee, there were no “facts” on which the District Court could act other than those recited in the indictment. Appellee contends that the statement “based on the facts of this case,” used by the District Judge in announcing his decision, shows reliance on the Government’s outline of its case. We read the District Judge’s reference to “facts,” in context, as a reference to the facts alleged in the indictment, and his ruling as holding that Members of Congress are totally immune from prosecution for accepting bribes for the performance of official, i. e., legislative, acts by virtue of the Speech or Debate Clause. Under that interpretation of § 201, it cannot be applied to a Member of Congress who accepts bribes that relate in any way to his office. We conclude, therefore, that the District Court was relying only on facts alleged in the indictment and that the dismissal of the indictment was based on a determination that the statute on which the indictment was drawn was invalid under the Speech or Debate Clause. As a consequence, this Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
II
The immunities of the Speech or Debate Clause were not written into the Constitution simply for the personal or private benefit of Members of Congress, but to protect the integrity of the legislative process by insuring the independence of individual legislators. The genesis of the Clause at common law is well known. In his opinion for the Court in United States v. Johnson, 383 U. S. 169 (1966), Mr. Justice Harlan canvassed the history of the Clause and concluded that it
“was the culmination of a long struggle for parliamentary supremacy. Behind these simple phrases lies a history of conflict between the Commons and the Tudor and Stuart monarchs during which successive monarchs utilized the criminal and civil law to suppress and intimidate critical legislators. Since the Glorious Revolution in Britain, and throughout United States history, the privilege has been recognized as an important protection of the independence and integrity of the legislature.” Id., at 178 (footnote omitted).
Although the Speech or Debate Clause’s historic roots are in English history, it must be interpreted in light of the American experience, and in the context of the American constitutional scheme of government rather than the English parliamentary system. We should bear in mind that the English system differs from ours in that their Parliament is the supreme authority, not a coordinate branch. Our speech or debate privilege was designed to preserve legislative independence, not supremacy. Our task, therefore, is to apply the Clause in such a way as to insure the independence of the legislature without altering the historic balance of the three co-equal branches of Government.
It does not undermine the validity of the Framers’ concern for the independence of the Legislative Branch to acknowledge that our history does not reflect a catalogue of abuses at the hands of the Executive that gave rise to the privilege in England. There is nothing in our history, for example, comparable to the imprisonment of a Member of Parliament in the Tower without a hearing and, owing to the subservience of some royal judges to the 17th and 18th century English kings, without meaningful recourse to a writ of habeas corpus: In fact, on only one previous occasion has this Court ever interpreted the Speech or Debate Clause in the context of a criminal charge against a Member of Congress.
(a) In United States v. Johnson, supra, the Court reviewed the conviction of a former Representative on seven counts of violating the federal conflict-of-interest statute, 18 U. S. C. §281 (1964 ed.), and on one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States, 18 U. S. C. § 371. The Court of Appeals had set aside the conviction on the count for conspiracy to defraud as violating the Speech or Debate Clause. Mr. Justice Harlan, speaking for the Court, 383 U. S., at 183, cited the oft-quoted passage of Mr. Justice Lush in Ex parte Wason, L. R. 4 Q. B. 573 (1869):
“I am clearly of opinion that we ought not to allow it to be doubted for a moment that the motives or intentions of members of either House cannot be inquired into by criminal proceedings with respect to anything they may do or say in the House.” Id., at 577 (emphasis added).
In Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U. S. 168 (1881), the first case in which this Court interpreted the Speech or Debate Clause, the Court expressed a similar view of the ambit of the American privilege. There the Court said the Clause is to be read broadly to include anything “generally done in a session of the House by one of its members in relation to the business before it.” Id., at 204. This statement, too, was cited with approval in Johnson, 383 U. S., at 179. Our conclusion in Johnson was that the privilege protected Members from inquiry into legislative acts or the motivation for actual performance of legislative acts. Id., at 185.
In applying the Speech or Debate Clause, the Court focused on the specific facts of the Johnson prosecution. The conspiracy-to-defraud count alleged an agreement among Representative Johnson and three co-defendants to obtain the dismissal of pending indictments against officials of savings and loan institutions. For these services, which included a speech made by Johnson on the House floor, the Government claimed Johnson was paid a bribe. At trial, the Government questioned Johnson extensively, relative to the conspiracy-to-defraud count, concerning the authorship of the speech, the factual basis for certain statements made in the speech, and his motives for giving the speech. The Court held that the use of evidence of a speech to support a count under a broad conspiracy statute was prohibited by the Speech or Debate Clause. The Government was, therefore, precluded from prosecuting the conspiracy count on retrial, insofar as it depended on inquiries into speeches made in the House.
It is important to note the very narrow scope of the Court’s holding in Johnson:
“We hold that a prosecution under a general criminal statute dependent on such inquiries [into the speech or its preparation] necessarily contravenes the Speech or Debate Clause. We emphasize that our holding is limited to prosecutions involving circumstances such as those presented in the case before us.” 383 U. S., at 184-185.
The opinion specifically left open the (question of a prosecution which, though possibly entailing some reference to legislative acts, is founded upon a “narrowly drawn” statute passed by Congress in the exercise of its power to regulate its Members’ conduct. Of more relevance to this case, the Court in Johnson emphasized that its decision did not affect a prosecution that, though founded on a criminal statute of general application, “does not draw in question the legislative acts of the defendant member of Congress or his motives for performing them.” Id., at 185. The Court did not question the power of the United States to try Johnson on the conflict-of-interest counts, and it authorized a new trial on the conspiracy count, provided that all references to the making of the speech were eliminated.
Three members of the Court would have affirmed Johnson's conviction. Mr. Chief Justice Warren, joined by Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Brennan, concurring in part and dissenting in part, stated:
“After reading the record, it is my conclusion that the Court of Appeals erred in determining that the evidence concerning the speech infected the jury's judgment on the [conflict-of-interest] counts. The evidence amply supports the prosecution's theory and the jury’s verdict on these counts— that the respondent received over $20,000 for attempting to have the Justice Department dismiss an indictment against his [present] co-conspirators, without disclosing his role in the enterprise. This is the classic example of a violation of § 281 by a Member of the Congress.... The arguments of government counsel and the court’s instructions separating the conspiracy from the substantive counts seem unimpeachable. The speech was a minor part of the prosecution. There was nothing in it to inflame the jury and the respondent pointed with pride to it as evidence of his vigilance in protecting the financial institutions of his State. The record further reveals that the trial participants were well aware that a finding of criminality on one count did not authorize similar conclusions as to other counts, and I believe that this salutary principle was conscientiously followed. Therefore, I would affirm the convictions on the substantive counts.” Id., at 188-189. (Footnote omitted.)
Johnson thus stands as a unanimous holding that a Member of Congress may be prosecuted under a criminal statute provided that the Government’s case does not rely on legislative acts or the motivation for legislative acts. A legislative act has consistently been defined as an act generally done in Congress in relation to the business before it. In sum, the Speech or Debate Clause prohibits inquiry only into those things generally said or done in the House or the Senate in the performance of official duties and into the motivation for those acts.
It is well known, of course, that Members of the Congress engage in many activities other than the purely legislative activities protected by the Speech or Debate Clause. These include a wide range of legitimate “errands” performed for constituents, the making of appointments with Government agencies, assistance in securing Government contracts, preparing so-called "news letters” to constituents, news releases, and speeches delivered outside the Congress. The range of these related activities has grown over the years. They are performed in part because they have come to be expected by constituents, and because they are a means of developing continuing support for future elections. Although these are entirely legitimate activities, they are political in nature rather than legislative, in the sense that term has been used by the Court in prior cases. But it has never been seriously contended that these political matters, however appropriate, have the protection afforded by the Speech or Debate Clause. Careful examination of the decided cases reveals that the Court has regarded the protection as reaching only those things “generally done in a session of the House by one of its members in relation to the business before it,” Kilbourn v. Thompson, supra, at 204, or things “said or done by him, as a representative, in the exercise of the functions of that office,” Coffin v. Coffin, 4 Mass. 1, 27 (1808).
(b) Appellee argues, however, that in Johnson we expressed a broader test for the coverage of the Speech or Debate Clause. It is urged that we held that the Clause protected from executive or judicial inquiry all conduct “related to the due functioning of the legislative process.” It is true that the quoted words appear in the Johnson opinion, but appellee takes them out of context; in context they reflect a quite different meaning from that now urged. Although the indictment against Johnson contained eight counts, only one count was challenged before this Court as in violation of the Speech or Debate Clause. The other seven counts concerned Johnson’s attempts to influence staff members of the Justice Department to dismiss pending prosecutions. In explaining why those counts were not before the Court, Mr. Justice Harlan wrote:
“No argument is made, nor do we think that it could be successfully contended, that the Speech or Debate Clause reaches conduct, such as was involved in the attempt to influence the Department of Justice, that is in no wise related to the due functioning of the legislative process. It is the application of this broad conspiracy statute to an improperly motivated speech that raises the constitutional problem with which we deal.” 383 U. S., at 172. (Emphasis added; footnote omitted.)
In stating that those things “in no wise related to the due functioning of the legislative process” were not covered by the privilege, the Court did not in any sense imply as a corollary that everything that “related” to the office of a Member was shielded by the Clause. Quite the contrary, in Johnson we held, citing Kilbourn v. Thompson, supra, that only acts generally done in the course of the process of enacting legislation were protected.
Nor can we give Kilbourn a more expansive interpretation. In citing with approval, 103 U. S., at 203, the language of Chief Justice Parsons of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in Coffin v. Coffin, 4 Mass. 1 (1808), the Kilbourn Court gave no thought to enlarging “legislative acts” to include illicit conduct outside the House. The Coffin language is:
“[The Massachusetts legislative privilege] ought not to be construed strictly, but liberally, that the full design of it may be answered. I will not confine it to delivering an opinion, uttering a speech, or haranguing in debate; but will extend it to the giving of a vote, to the making of a written report, and to every other act resulting from the nature, and in the execution, of the office: and I would define the article, as securing to every member exemption from prosecution, for every thing said or done by him, as a representative, in the exercise of the functions of that office without enquiring whether the exercise was regular according to the rules of the house, or irregular and against their rules. I do not confine the member to his place in the house; and I am satisfied that there are cases, in which he is entitled to this privilege, when not within the walls of the representatives’ chamber.” Id., at 27 (emphasis added).
It is suggested that in citing these words, which were also quoted with approval in Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367, 373-374 (1951), the Court was interpreting the sweep of the Speech or Debate Clause to be broader than Johnson seemed to indicate or than we today hold. Emphasis is placed on the statement that “there are cases in which [a Member] is entitled to this privilege, when not within the walls of the representatives’ chamber.” But the context of Coffin v. Coffin indicates that in this passage Chief Justice Parsons was referring only to legislative acts, such as committee meetings, which take place outside the physical confines of the legislative chamber. In another passage, the meaning is clarified:
“If a member... be out of the chamber, sitting in committee, executing the commission of the house, it appears to me that such member is within the reason of the article, and ought to be considered within the privilege. The body of which he is a member, is in session, and he, as a member of that body, is in fact discharging the duties of his office. He ought therefore to be protected from civil or criminal prosecutions for every thing said or done by him in the exercise of his functions, as a representative in committee, either in debating, in assenting to, or in draughting a report.” 4 Mass., at 28.
In no case has this Court ever treated the Clause as protecting all conduct relating to the legislative process. In every case thus far before this Court, the Speech or Debate Clause has been limited to an act which was clearly a part of the legislative process — the due functioning of the process. Appellee’s contention for a broader interpretation of the privilege draws essentially on the flavor of the rhetoric and the sweep of the language used by courts, not on the precise words used in any prior case, and surely not on the sense of those cases, fairly read.
(c) We would not think it sound or wise, simply out of an abundance of caution to doubly insure legislative independence, to extend the privilege beyond its intended scope, its literal language, and its history, to include all things in any way related to the legislative process. Given such a sweeping reading, we have no doubt that there are few activities in which a legislator engages that he would be unable somehow to “relate” to the legislative process. Admittedly, the Speech or Debate Clause must be read broadly to effectuate its purpose of protecting the independence of the Legislative Branch, but no more than the statutes we apply, was its purpose to make Members of Congress super-citizens, immune from criminal responsibility. In its narrowest scope, the Clause is a very large, albeit essential, grant of privilege. It has enabled reckless men to slander and even destroy others with impunity, but that was the conscious choice of the Framers.
The history of the privilege is by no means free from grave abuses by legislators. In one instance, abuses reached such a level in England that Parliament was compelled to enact curative legislation.
“The practice of granting the privilege of freedom from arrest and molestation to members’ servants in time became a serious menace to individual liberty and to public order, and a form of protection by which offenders often tried — and they were often successful — to escape the penalties which their of-fences deserved and which the ordinary courts would not have hesitated to inflict. Indeed, the sale of 'protections’ at one time proved a source of income to unscrupulous members, and these parliamentary 'indulgences’ were on several occasions obtainable at a fixed market price.” C. Wittke, The History of English Parliamentary Privilege 39 (1921).
The authors of our Constitution were well aware of the history of both the need for the privilege and the abuses that could flow from too sweeping safeguards. In order to preserve other values, they wrote the privilege so that it tolerates and protects behavior on the part of Members not tolerated and protected when done by other citizens, but the shield does not extend beyond what is necessary to preserve the integrity of the legislative process. Moreover, unlike England with no formal, written constitutional limitations on the monarch, we defined limits on the co-ordinate branches, providing other checks to protect against abuses of the kind experienced in that country.
It is also suggested that, even if we interpreted the Clause broadly so as to exempt from inquiry all matters having any relationship to the legislative process, misconduct of Members would not necessarily go unpunished because each House is empowered to discipline its Members. Article I, § 5, does indeed empower each House to “determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member,” but Congress is ill-equipped to investigate, try, and punish its Members for a wide range of behavior that is loosely and incidentally related to the legislative process. In this sense, the English analogy on which the dissents place much emphasis, and the reliance on Ex parte Wason, L. R. 4 Q. B. 573 (1869), are inapt. Parliament is itself “The High Court of Parliament” — the highest court in the land- — -and its judicial tradition better equips it for judicial tasks.
“It is by no means an exaggeration to say that [the judicial characteristics of Parliament] colored and influenced some of the great struggles over [legislative] privilege in and out of Parliament to the very close of the nineteenth century. It is not altogether certain whether they have been entirely forgotten even now. Nowhere has the theory that Parliament is a court — the highest court of the realm, often acting in a judicial capacity and in a judicial manner — persisted longer than in the history of privilege of Parliament.” Wittke, supra, at 14.
The very fact of the supremacy of Parliament as England’s highest tribunal explains the long tradition precluding trial for official misconduct of a member in any other and lesser tribunal.
In Australia and Canada, “where provision for legislative free speech or debate exists but where the legislature may not claim a tradition as the highest court of the realm, courts have held that the privilege does not bar the criminal prosecution of legislators for bribery.” Note, The Bribed Congressman’s Immunity from Prosecution, 75 Yale L. J. 335, 338 (1965) (footnote omitted). Congress has shown little inclination to exert itself in this area. Moreover, if Congress did lay aside its normal activities and take on itself the responsibility to police and prosecute the myriad activities of its Members related to but not directly a part of the legislative function, the independence of individual Members might actually be impaired.
The process of disciplining a Member in the Congress is not without countervailing risks of abuse since it is not surrounded with the panoply of protective shields that are present in a criminal case. An accused Member is judged by no specifically articulated standards and is at the mercy of an almost unbridled discretion of the charging body that functions at once as accuser, prosecutor, judge, and jury from whose decision there is no established right of review. In short, a Member would be compelled to defend in what would be comparable to a criminal prosecution without the safeguards provided by the Constitution. Moreover, it would be somewhat naive to assume that the triers would be wholly objective and free from considerations of party and politics and the passions of the moment. Strong arguments can be made that trials conducted in a Congress with an entrenched majority from one political party could result in far greater harassment than a conventional criminal trial with the wide range of procedural protections for the accused, including indictment by grand jury, trial by jury under strict standards of proof with fixed rules of evidence, and extensive appellate review.
Finally, the jurisdiction of Congress to punish its Members is not all-embracing. For instance, it is unclear to what extent Congress would have jurisdiction over a case such as this in which the alleged illegal activity occurred outside the chamber, while the appellee was a Member, but was undiscovered or not brought before a grand jury until after he left office:
The sweeping claims of appellee would render Members of Congress virtually immune from a wide range of crimes simply because the acts in question were peripherally related to their holding office. Such claims are inconsistent with the reading this Court has given, not only to the Speech or Debate Clause, but also to the other legislative privileges embodied in Art. I, § 6. The very sentence in which the Speech or Debate Clause appears provides that Members “shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses....” In Williamson v. United States, 207 U. S. 425 (1908), this Court rejected a claim, made by a Member convicted of subornation of perjury in proceedings for the purchase of public lands, that he could not be arrested, convicted, or imprisoned for any crime that was not treason, felony, or breach of the peace in the modern sense, i. e., disturbing the peace. Mr. Justice Edward Douglass White noted that when the Constitution was written the term "breach of the peace” did not mean, as it came to mean later, a misdemeanor such as disorderly conduct but had a different 18th century usage, since it derived from breaching the King’s peace and thus embraced the whole range of crimes at common law. Quoting Lord Mansfield, he noted, with respect to the claim of parliamentary privilege, “[t]he laws of this country allow no place or employment as a sanctuary for crime....” Id., at 439.
The subsequent case of Long v. Ansell, 293 U. S. 76 (1934), held that a Member’s immunity from arrest in civil cases did not extend to civil process. Mr. Justice Brandéis wrote for the Court:
“Clause 1 [of Art. I, § 6] defines the extent of the immunity. Its language is exact and leaves no room for a construction which would extend the privilege beyond the terms of the grant.” Id., at 82.
We recognize that the privilege against arrest is not identical with the Speech or Debate privilege, but it is closely related in purpose and origin. It can hardly be thought that the Speech or Debate Clause totally protects what the sentence preceding it has plainly left open to prosecution, i. e., all criminal acts.
(d) Me. Justice White suggests that permitting the Executive to initiate the prosecution of a Member of Congress for the specific crime of bribery is subject to serious potential abuse that might endanger the independence of the legislature — for example, a campaign contribution might be twisted by a ruthless prosecutor into a bribery indictment. But, as we have just noted, the Executive is not alone in possessing power potentially subject to abuse; such possibilities are inherent in a system of government that delegates to each of the three branches separate and independent powers. In The Federalist No. 73, Hamilton expressed concern over the possible hazards that confronted an Executive dependent on Congress for financial support.
“The Legislature, with a discretionary power over the salary and emoluments of the Chief Magistrate, could render him as obsequious to their will as they might think proper to make him. They might, in most cases, either reduce him by famine, or tempt him by largesses, to surrender at discretion his judgment to their inclinations.”
Yet Hamilton’s “parade of horribles” finds little real support in history. The check-and-balance mechanism, buttressed by unfettered debate in an open society with a free press, has not encouraged abuses of power or tolerated them long when they arose. This may be explained in part because the third branch has intervened with neutral authority. See, e. g., United States v. Lovett, 328 U. S. 303 (1946). The system of divided powers was expressly designed to check the abuses England experienced in the 16th to the 18th centuries.
Probably of more importance is the public reaction engendered by any attempt of one branch to dominate or harass another. Even traditional political attempts to establish dominance have met with little success owing to contrary popular sentiment. Attempts to “purge” uncooperative legislators, for example, have not been notably successful. We are not cited to any cases in which the bribery statutes, which have been applicable to Members of Congress for over 100 years, have been abused by the Executive Branch. When a powerful Executive sought to make the Judicial Branch more responsive to the combined will of the Executive and Legislative Branches, it was the Congress itself that checked the effort to enlarge the Court. 2 M. Pusey, Charles Evans Hughes 749-765 (1951).
We would be closing our eyes to the realities of the American political system if we failed to acknowledge that many non-legislative activities are an established and accepted part of the role of a Member, and are indeed “related” to the legislative process. But if the Executive may prosecute a Member’s attempt, as in Johnson, to influence another branch of the Government in return for a bribe, its power to harass is not greatly enhanced if it can prosecute for a promise relating to a legislative act in return for a bribe. We therefore see no substantial increase in the power of the Executive and Judicial Branches over the Legislative Branch resulting from our holding today. If we underestimate the potential for harassment, the Congress, of course, is free to exempt its Members from the ambit of federal bribery laws, but it has deliberately allowed the instant statute to remain on the books for over a century.
We do not discount entirely the possibility that an abuse might occur, but this possibility, which we consider remote, must be balanced against the potential danger flowing from either the absence of a bribery statute applicable to Members of Congress or a holding that the statute violates the Constitution. As we noted at the outset, the purpose of the Speech or Debate Clause is to protect the individual legislator, not simply for his own sake, but to preserve the independence and thereby the integrity of the legislative process. But financial abuses by way of bribes, perhaps even more than Executive power, would gravely undermine legislative integrity and defeat the right of the public to honest representation. Depriving the Executive of the power to investigate and prosecute and the Judiciary of the power to punish bribery of Members of Congress is unlikely to enhance legislative independence. Given the disinclination and limitations of each House to police these matters, it is understandable that both Houses deliberately delegated this function to the courts, as they did with the power to punish persons committing contempts of Congress. 2 U. S. C. § 194.
It is beyond doubt that the Speech or Debate Clause protects against inquiry into acts that occur in the regular course of the legislative process and into the motivation for those acts. So expressed, the privilege is broad enough to insure the historic independence of the Legislative Branch, essential to our separation of powers, but narrow enough to guard against the excesses of those who would corrupt the process by corrupting its Members. We turn next to determine whether the subject of this criminal inquiry is within the scope of the privilege.
Ill
An examination of the indictment brought against appellee and the statutes on which it is founded reveals that no inquiry into legislative acts or motivation for legislative acts is necessary for the Government to make out a prima facie case. Four of the five counts charge that appellee “corruptly asked, solicited, sought, accepted, received and agreed to receive” money “in return for being influenced... in respect to his action, vote, and decision on postage rate legislation which might at any time be pending before him in his official capacity.” This is said to be a violation of 18 U. S. C. § 201 (c), which provides that a Member who “corruptly asks, demands, exacts, solicits, seeks, accepts, receives, or agrees to receive anything of value... in return for... (1) being influenced in his performance of any official act” is guilty of an offense.
The question is whether it is necessary to inquire into how appellee spoke, how he debated, how he voted, or anything he did in the chamber or in committee in order to make out a violation of this statute. The illegal conduct is taking or agreeing to take money for a promise to act in a certain way. There is no need for the Government to show that appellee fulfilled the alleged illegal bargain; acceptance of the bribe is the violation of the statute, not performance of the
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Reed
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion in which The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Jackson, and Mr. Justice Burton join.
These cases present the question of the scope of review of a selective service classification in a trial for absence without leave from a civilian public service camp. Petitioners are Jehovah’s Witnesses who were classified as conscientious objectors despite their claim to classification as ministers of religion. Ministers are exempt from military and other service under the Act. All three petitioners exhausted their remedies in the selective service process and complied with the order of the local board directing them to report to camp. Cox and Thompson were indicted for leaving the camp without permission, and Roisum was indicted for failing to return after proper leave, in violation of § 11 of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940. 54 Stat. 885, 57 Stat. 597, 50 U. S. C. Appendix §§ 301-318.
On their trials petitioners requested directed verdicts, at appropriate times, because the selective service orders were invalid and requested the court to charge the jury that they acquit petitioners if they found that they were ministers of religion and therefore exempt from all service. The trial judge did not grant petitioners’ requests, however, and instructed the juries that they were not to concern themselves with the validity of the classification orders. Petitioners were convicted, and on appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals their convictions were affirmed. 157 F. 2d 787. We granted certiorari in order to resolve questions concerning the submission to the jury of evidence, to wit, the files of the local board of the selective service system, as relevant to the charge of violation of selective service orders. 331 U. S. 801.
Petitioner Cox registered under the Selective Training and Service Act on October 16, 1940, and in his questionnaire stated that he was 22 years old and had been employed as a truck driver since 1936. The local board classified him IV-F, as not physically fit for service, on January 31, 1941, and on March 10, 1942, changed the classification to I-A. Ten days later Cox filed a request for reclassification as IV-E (conscientious objector), stating that he had become a Jehovah’s Witness in January 1942. The board at first rejected the claim, but on June 12 of the same year granted him the requested classification. Ten days later petitioner first made his claim for total exemption from service, claiming to be a minister of religion; the local board refused the exemption and its action was sustained by the board of appeal. On May 18, 1944, the board ordered Cox to report to camp, and on May 26 he complied and then immediately left camp and did not return.
Upon trial Cox’s selective service file was received in evidence. It contained an ordination certificate from the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society stating that Cox was “a duly ordained minister of the Gospel” and that his “entire time” was devoted to missionary work. The file also contained an affidavit of a company servant, Cox’s church superior, dated October 29, 1942, stating that Cox “regularly and customarily serves as a minister by going from house to house and conducting Bible Studies and Bible Talks.” There was also an affidavit by Cox, dated October 28, 1942, stating that he was enrolled in the “Pioneer service” on October 16 and that he was “able to average 150 hours per month to my ministerial duties without secular work.” He added that “my entire time will be devoted to preaching the Gospel as a pioneer.” Cox testified at the trial in October 1944 as to his duties as a minister that he preached from house to house, conducted funerals, and “instructed the Bible” in homes. No evidence was introduced showing the total amount of time Cox had spent in religious activities since October 16, 1942. Nor was there evidence of the secular activities of Cox nor the time employed in them. Although the selective service file was introduced in evidence, and the trial court denied the motion for a directed verdict, it does not appear that the trial judge examined the file to determine whether the action of the local board was arbitrary and capricious or without basis in fact. At that time the lower federal courts interpreted Falbo v. United States, 320 U. S. 549, as meaning that no judicial review of any sort could be had of a selective service order. In Estep v. United States, 327 U. S. 114, we held that a limited review could be obtained if the registrant had exhausted his administrative remedies, and the Circuit Court of Appeals in accordance with that decision reviewed the file of Cox and found that the evidence was “substantially in support” of the classification found by the board.
Petitioner Thompson also registered on October 16, 1940, claiming exemption as a minister. He stated in his questionnaire that he was 30 years old and that for the past 13 years he had operated a grocery store and had been a minister since August 1, 1940. At first the local board gave him a deferred classification because of dependency, but then changed his classification to IV-E. Thompson appealed to the board of appeal on November 5, 1943, explaining his duties as a minister and presenting a full statement of his argument that as a colporteur he was within the exemption for ministers as interpreted by selective service regulations. He attached an affidavit from the company servant, which stated that Thompson during the preceding twelve months had devoted 519% hours to “field service,” representing time spent in going from house to house, and making “back-calls on the people of good will,” but not including time spent in conducting studies at the “local Kingdom Hall.” Another affidavit from the company servant stated that Thompson was an ordained minister of the Gospel, that he was serving as assistant company servant, and that he was a “School Instructor in a Course in Theocratic Ministry.” Thompson also attached three certificates from the national headquarters of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society which stated that Thompson had been associated with the Society since 1941, that he served as assistant company servant and Theocratic Ministry Instructor, and also as advertising servant and book study conductor. Unlike the other two petitioners, Thompson did not introduce an ordination certification from national headquarters stating that he devoted his entire time as a minister. Thompson also filed a statement signed by twelve Witnesses which stated that they regarded Thompson as an ordained minister of the gospel. No evidence was submitted indicating any change in Thompson’s activities in operating his grocery store. The board of appeal sustained the local board in its classification, the board ordered Thompson to report to camp, and on April 18, 1944, he reported and immediately left. Thompson’s trial followed the same pattern as Cox’s, except that Thompson was not allowed to testify concerning his duties as a minister.
Petitioner Roisum also registered on the initial registration day, and filed a questionnaire stating that he was 22 years old, that he had worked for the past 15 years as a farmer, and that he was ordained as a minister in June 1940. Roisum made claim to a minister’s exemption but at the same time submitted an affidavit signed by his father saying that petitioner was necessary to the operation of his father’s farm. In June 1942 Roisum filed a conscientious objector’s form claiming exemption from both combatant and non-combatant military service; this form was apparently filed under misapprehension, since Roisum did not abandon his contention that he should be classified as a minister. In the form he stated that he preached the gospel of the Kingdom at every opportunity. Roisum also enclosed a letter from national headquarters of the Society stating that Roisum had been affiliated with the Society since 1936, that he had been baptized in 1940 and “was appointed direct representative of this organization to perform missionary and evangelistic service in organizing and establishing churches and generally preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom of God in definitely assigned territory in 1941” and that Roisum devoted his “entire time” to missionary work and was a duly ordained minister. The local board classified Roisum as a conscientious objector to combat service (I-A-O), and Roisum appealed on June 30, 1943. Roisum attached an affidavit from his company servant stating that Roisum was an assistant company servant, a back call servant, and book study conductor, and that by performance of these duties Roisum had acquitted himself as a “regular minister of the gospel.” The company servant submitted a schedule showing the number of hours which Roisum had spent in religious activities for six months from October 1942 to March 1943, ranging from as little as 11 hours per month to as many as 69, averaging about 40. The board of appeal changed the classification to IY-E and rejected Roisum’s request that an appeal be taken to the President. Roisum was ordered to report to camp, disobeyed the order, and was arrested and indicted. The trial court declared a mistrial on Roisum’s undertaking to obey the board’s order and seek release on habeas corpus. Roisum subsequently failed to comply, apparently because of transportation difficulties, but finally reported to camp on May 23, 1944, as directed. He remained in camp for five days, left on a week-end pass, and never returned.
Upon trial Roisum made no effort to introduce new evidence showing the nature of his duties as a minister. He did request the court to charge that if the decision of the local board erroneously classified him in IV-E the order was void and after conviction he moved for a judgment of acquittal or a new trial on the ground that the evidence in his selective service file showed that the classification of the board was arbitrary and capricious. The trial judge examined the file and concluded that there was no ground to support Roisum’s motion.
Petitioners are entitled to raise the question of the validity of their selective service classifications in this proceeding. They have exhausted their remedies in the selective service process, and whatever their position might be in attempting to raise the question by writs of habeas corpus against the camp custodian, they are entitled to raise the issue as a defense in a criminal prosecution for absence without leave. Gibson v. United States, 329 U. S. 338, 351-360. The scope of review to which petitioners are entitled, however, is limited; as we said in Estep v. United States, 327 U. S. 114, 122-23: “The provision making the decisions of the local boards 'final’ means to us that Congress chose not to give administrative action under this Act the customary scope of judicial review which obtains under other statutes. It means that the courts are not to weigh the evidence to determine whether the classification made by the local boards was justified. The decisions of the local boards made in conformity with the regulations are final even though they may be erroneous. The question of jurisdiction of the local board is reached only if there is no basis in fact for the classification which it gave the registrant.” Compare Eagles v. United States ex rel. Samuels, 329 U. S. 304, and Eagles v. United States ex rel. Horowitz, 329 U. S. 317, in which a similar scope of review is enunciated in habeas corpus proceedings by registrants claiming to have been improperly inducted.
Section 5 (d) of the Selective Training and Service Act provides that “regular or duly ordained ministers of religion” shall be exempt from training and service under the Act, and § 622.44 of Selective Service Regulations defines the terms “regular minister of religion” and “duly ordained minister of religion.” In order to aid the local boards in applying the regulation, the Director of Selective Service issued Opinion No. 14 (amended) on November 2, 1942, which described the tests to be applied in determining whether Jehovah’s Witnesses were entitled to exemption as ministers, regular or ordained. The opinion stated that Witnesses who were members of the Bethel Family (producers of religious supplies) or pioneers, devoting all or substantially all of their time to the work of teaching the tenets of their religion, generally were exempt, and appended a list of certain members of the Bethel Family and pioneers who were entitled to this exemption. None of these Witnesses were on the list. The opinion stated that members of the Bethel Family and pioneers whose names did not appear on the list, as well as all other Witnesses holding official titles in the organization, must be classified by the boards according to the facts in each case. The determining criteria were stated to be “whether or not they devote their lives in the furtherance of the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses, whether or not they perform functions which are normally performed by regular or duly ordained ministers of other religions, and, finally, whether or not they are regarded by other Jehovah’s Witnesses in the same manner in which regular or duly ordained ministers of other religions are ordinarily regarded.” The opinion further stated that the local board should place in the registrant’s file “a record of all facts entering into its determination for the reason that it is legally necessary that the record show the basis of the local board’s decision.”
It will be observed that § 622.44 of the regulation makes “ordination” the only practical difference between a “regular” and a “duly ordained minister.” This seems consistent with § 5 of the Act. We are of the view that the regulation conforms to the Act and that it is valid under the rule-making power conferred by §10 (a).- We agree, also, that Opinion 14 furnishes a proper guide to the interpretation of the Act and Regulations.
Our examination of the facts, as stated herein in each case, convinces us that the board had adequate basis to deny to Cox, Thompson and Roisum classification as ministers, regular or ordained. We confine ourselves to the facts appearing in the selective service files of the three petitioners, although the only documents dealing with the petitioners’ status as ministers were submitted by petitioners themselves. The documents show that Thompson and Roisum spent only a small portion of their time in religious activities, and this fact alone, without a far stronger showing than is contained in either of the files of the registrants’ leadership in church activities and the dedication of their lives to the furtherance of religious work, is sufficient for the board to deny them a minister’s classification. As for Cox, the documents suggest but do not prove that Cox spent full time as a “pioneer” between October 1942 and May 1944 when he was ordered to camp. As he made claim of conscientious objector classification only after he was reclassified I-A from IV-F and still later claimed ministerial exemption, the board was justified in deciding from the available facts that Cox had not established his ministerial status. The board might have reasonably held that nothing less than definite evidence of his full devotion of his available time to religious leadership would suffice under these circumstances. Nor may Cox and Thompson complain that the district court failed to pass on the validity of the classification orders. If there was error of the district court in failing to examine the files of the board to determine whether or not there was basis for their classification, it was cured in the Circuit Court of Appeals by that court’s examination.
Petitioners do not limit themselves to the claim that directed verdicts should have been entered in their favor because of the invalidity of their classifications as a matter of law; they claim that the issue should have been submitted with appropriate instructions to the jury. The charge requested by Roisum that he be acquitted if the jury found that he was “erroneously” classified was improper. In Estep v. United States it was distinctly stated that mere error in a classification was insufficient grounds for attack. Cox and Thompson requested charges under which the jury would determine “whether or not the defendant is a minister of religion” without considering the action of the local board. We hold that such a charge would also have been improper. Whether there was “no basis in fact” for the classification is not a question to be determined by the jury on an independent consideration of the evidence. The concept of a jury passing independently on an issue previously determined by an administrative body or reviewing the action of an administrative body is contrary to settled federal administrative practice; the constitutional right to jury trial does not include the right to have a jury pass on the validity of an administrative order. Yakus v. United States, 321 U. S. 414. Although we held in Estep that Congress did not intend to cut off all judicial review of a selective service order, petitioners have full protection by having the issue submitted to the trial judge and the reviewing courts to determine whether there was any substantial basis for the classification order. When the judge determines that there was a basis in fact to support classification, the issue need not and should not be submitted to the jury. Perhaps a court or jury would reach a different result from the evidence but as the determination of classification is for selective service, its order is reviewable “only if there is no basis in fact for the classification.” Estep v. United States, supra, 122. Consequently when a court finds a basis in the file for the board’s action that action is conclusive. The question of the preponderance of evidence is not for trial anew. It is not relevant to the issue of the guilt of the accused for disobedience of orders. Upon the judge’s determination that the file supports the board, nothing in the file is pertinent to any issue proper for jury consideration.
Petitioners also claim that they were denied the right to introduce new evidence at the trial to support their contention that the orders were invalid. Roisum made no attempt to introduce such evidence, Cox was in fact allowed to testify as to his duties as a minister, and only Thompson was denied the opportunity so to testify. Thompson did not specify this point as error in his appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals. Passing the possible waiver on the part of Thompson by failing to argue this point below, we hold that his contention is without merit. Petitioner claims that his status as a minister is a “jurisdictional fact” which may be determined de novo (reexamination of the record of the former hearing with right to adduce additional evidence) in a criminal trial, and relies on Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U. S. 276, where we held that an alleged alien was entitled to a judicial trial on the issue of alienage in habeas corpus proceedings. But that case is different from this. The alien, there, claimed American citizenship. As such, this Court said, he had a right to a judicial hearing of his claim as a matter of due process. This he could not get before the Commissioner of Immigration. Therefore, since the deportation of a citizen may involve loss “of all that makes life worth living,” this Court decided that the “jurisdiction” of the Commissioner to try the alleged alien could be tested by habeas corpus. P. 284. That gave the alleged alien a judicial hearing. In these cases judicial review of administrative action is allowed in the criminal trial. This assures judicial consideration of a registrant’s rights. Petitioners’ objection on this point is in essence that the review is limited to evidence that appeared in the administrative proceeding. It seems to us that it is quite in accord with justice to limit the evidence as to status in the criminal trial on review of administrative action to that upon which the board acted. As we have said elsewhere the board records were made by petitioners. It was open to them there to furnish full information as to their activities. It is that record upon which the board acted and upon which the registrants’ violation of orders must be predicated.
We perceive no error to petitioners’ prejudice in the records.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter concurs in the result.
54 Stat. 885, 888:
“Sec. 5. . . .
“(d) Regular or duly ordained ministers of religion, and students who are preparing for the ministry in theological or divinity schools recognized as such for more than one year prior to the date of enactment of this Act, shall be exempt from training and service (but not from registration) under this Act.”
Selective Service Regulations, 32 C. F. R., 1941 Supp.:
Section 622.44. “Class IV-D: Minister of religion or divinity student. (a) In Class IY-D shall be placed any registrant who is a regular or duly ordained minister of religion or who is a student preparing for the ministry in a theological or divinity school which has been recognized as such for more than 1 year prior to the date of enactment of the Selective Training and Service Act (September 16, 1940).
“(b) A ‘regular minister of religion’ is a man who customarily preaches and teaches the principles of religion of a recognized church, religious sect, or religious organization of which he is a member, without having been formally ordained as a minister of religion; and who is recognized by such church, sect, or organization as a minister.
“(c) A ‘duly ordained minister of religion’ is a man who has been ordained in accordance with the ceremonial ritual or discipline of a recognized church, religious sect, or religious organization, to teach and preach its doctrines and to administer its rites and ceremonies in public worship; and who customarily performs those duties.”
Opinion 14 (amended) is on file at the Office of Selective Service Records, Washington, D. C.
For a similar conclusion under the same subdivision of the statute, giving exemption to regular and duly ordained ministers of religion and students, see Eagles v. Samuels, 329 U. S. 304, 316-17:
“Nor can we say there was no evidence to support the final classification made by the board of appeal. Samuels’ statement that he was best fitted to be a Hebrew school teacher and spiritual leader, the two-year interruption in his education, his return to the day session of the seminary in the month when his selective service questionnaire was returned, and the fact that the seminary in question was apparently not preparing men exclusively for the rabbinate make questionable his claim that he was preparing in good faith for the rabbinate. A registrant might seek a theological school as a refuge for the duration of the war. Congress did not create the exemption in § 5 (d) for him. There was some evidence that this was Samuels’ plan; and that evidence, coupled with his demeanor and attitude, might have seemed more persuasive to the boards than it does in the cold record. Our inquiry is ended when we are unable to say that the board flouted the command of Congress in denying Samuels the exemption.”
The Circuit Court of Appeals on April 5, 1946, ordered the judgments in these cases reversed on the ground that the jury should have passed on petitioners’ claims. Upon rehearing the opinion was withdrawn, and on October 4 the court handed down an opinion affirming the judgments. 157 F. 2d 787. In Smith v. United States, 157 F. 2d 176, the Circuit Court of Appeals held that the submission of the issue of classification to the jury constituted reversible error. But cf. United States ex rel. Kulick v. Kennedy, 157 F. 2d 811.
For an analogous power of a judge as to admissibility, see Wigmore (3d ed.) § 2550; Steele v. United States No. 2, 267 U. S. 505, 510-11; Ford v. United States, 273 U. S. 593, 605; Doe dem. Jenkins v. Davies, 10 Ad. & E. N. S. 314, 323-24; Phipsori, Evidence (8th ed.), p. 9.
See Goff v. United States, 135 F. 2d 610, and United States v. Messersmith, 138 F. 2d 599.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 301 (a) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (the Taft-Hartley Act) provides jurisdiction in the federal district courts over “[s]uits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce as defined in this chapter, or between any such labor organizations.” 61 Stat. 156, 29 U. S. C. § 185 (a) (emphasis added). The question presented in this case is whether a suit brought by a local union against its parent international union, alleging a violation of the international's constitution, falls within § 301 (a) jurisdiction of the federal district courts.
I
Respondent Local 334, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada (Local 334 or respondent), was a labor organization chartered by and affiliated with petitioner United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada (International or United Association), an international labor organization. Composed of both plumbers and pipe-fitters in Morris County, N. J., Local 334 was one of 27 New Jersey locals affiliated with the International prior to 1977. After failing in its attempt to urge the New Jersey locals to agree upon a voluntary consolidation plan, the International proposed its own plan that would consolidate nine northern New Jersey locals, including Local 334, into two locals, one representing plumbers, the other pipefitters. Under the plan, the plumber members of Local 334 would be transferred into Plumbers Local 14, and the pipefitter members of Local 334 into Pipefitters Local 274.
When the locals declined to agree to the International’s plan, the International issued an order of consolidation on August 4, 1977, based on the proposed plan, pursuant to § 86 of the constitution of the United Association. That section, entitled “Consolidation of Locals,” provides:
“Whenever, in the judgment of the General President, it is apparent that there is a superfluous number of Local Unions in any locality, and that a consolidation would be for the best interest of the United Association, locally or at large, he shall have the power to order Local Unions to consolidate and to enforce the consolidation of said Local Unions, or said territory in one or more Local Unions, provided such course received the sanction of the General'Executive Board.” App. 25.
After receiving no response to a letter sent to the General Executive Board requesting a stay of the order pending appeal, Local 334 on August 22, 1977, filed suit against the International in the Superior Court of New Jersey seeking to enjoin enforcement of the order of consolidation. Local 334 alleged in its complaint, inter alia, that § 86 did not permit division of the membership of a local into separate work classifications, that the action of United Association did not constitute a consolidation of local unions, and that the general president had abused his discretion. Complaint ¶ 11, id., at 21. Claiming that it would suffer “substantial and irreparable injury to plaintiffs’ [sic] property and property rights as members of Local 334” unless the consolidation was prevented, Complaint ¶ 13, id., at 21, the Local requested equitable relief enjoining United Association to return the Local’s charter and seal, directing it to process the Local’s internal appeal to the International’s General Executive Board, and preventing it from threatening the Local’s officers and members with expulsion and loss of membership. Id., at 22.
The International removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1441. Local 334 filed a motion to remand the case to the state court, which the District Court denied. App. 98-99. Following completion of discovery and cross-motions for summary judgment, the District Court ruled in favor of the International. The court first concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because the Local had failed to exhaust internal union remedies. App. to Pet. for Cert. 22a-23a. In the alternative, the court ruled on the merits that there was “ample basis for the [International's] interpretation of the Constitution as well as the application of that interpretation in the Order of Consolidation of August 4, 1977.” Id., at 28a.
On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sua sponte, raised the question of federal-court jurisdiction under § 301 (a) and requested supplemental briefing on that issue from the parties. 628 P. 2d 812, 813 (1980). After canvassing treatment of this issue by other Courts of Appeals, the court held that “[s]uits concerning intra-union matters that do not have a significant impact on labor-management relations or industrial peace are outside the scope of § 301 (a).” Id., at 820. Examining Local 334’s allegations in its complaint, the court concluded that any alleged potential effect of the order of consolidation on labor-management relations or industrial peace would not pass the “significant impact” test and that the District Court therefore lacked jurisdiction under §301 (a). Ibid. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment of the District Court and remanded with instructions to remand the case to the state court. Ibid. We granted the International’s petition for certiorari, 449 U. S. 1123 (1981), to resolve this important question of labor law. We reverse.
II
Section 301 (a) establishes federal district court jurisdiction for “[s]uits for violation of contracts . . . between any . . . labor organizations [representing employees in an industry affecting commerce as defined in this chapter].” 29 U. S. C. § 185 (a). On its face, the statute appears to comprehend the instant dispute. First, United Association’s constitution may be fairly characterized as a contract between labor organizations. We have described a union constitution as a “fundamental agreement of association.” Coronado Coal Co. v. Mine Workers, 268 U. S. 295, 304 (1925); see Carbon Fuel Co. v. Mine Workers, 444 U. S. 212, 217 (1979). The Courts of Appeals are unanimous that a union constitution can be a “contract between labor organizations” within the meaning of § 301 (a). See, e. g., Alexander v. International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO, 624 F. 2d 1235, 1238 (CA5 1980); Studio Electrical Technicians Local 728 v. International Photographers of the Motion Picture Industries, Local 659, 598 F. 2d 551, 553 (CA9 1979); Local Union No. 657 v. Sidell, 552 F. 2d 1250, 1252-1256 (CA7), cert. denied, 434 U. S. 862 (1977); Trail v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 542 F. 2d 961, 968 (CA6 1976); National Assn. of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO v. Sombrotto, 449 F. 2d 915, 918 (CA2 1971); Parks v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 314 F. 2d 886, 916-917 (CA4), cert. denied, 372 U. S. 976 (1963). Indeed, even the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on review here recognized that a union constitution would be a “contract” within the meaning of § 301 (a) as long as the plaintiff made “specific factual allegations of actions which have a significant impact on labor-management relations or industrial peace.” 628 F. 2d, at 820. And respondent in its complaint alleged that “[t]he relationship (rights and duties) between Local 334 and the International is governed by the said Constitution.” Amended Complaint, First Count ¶ 3, App. 65.
We have also noted that the prevailing state-law view is that a union constitution is a contract. Machinists v. Gonzales, 356 U. S. 617, 618-619 (1958) (discussing that aspect of union constitution constituting a contract between members and union). In particular, the view of a union constitution as a contract between parent and local unions was widely held in the States around the time § 301 (a) was enacted. See, e. g., Locals 1140 and 1145 v. United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, 232 Minn. 217, 221-222, 45 N. W. 2d 408, 411 (1950); International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink & Distillery Workers of America, C. I. O. v. Becherer, 4 N. J. Super. 456, 459, 67 A. 2d 900, 901, cert. denied, 3 N. J. 374, 70 A. 2d 537 (1949); Local Union 13013, District 50, U. M. W. v. Cikra, 86 Ohio App. 41, 49, 90 N. E. 2d 154, 158 (1949); Bridgeport Brass Workers Union, Local 320 of the International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers v. Smith, 15 Conn. Supp. 505, 511-512 (Super. Ct. 1948), aff’d, 136 Conn. 654, 74 A. 2d 191 (1950); Textile Workers Local 204 v. Federal Labor Union No. 21500, 240 Ala. 239, 243, 198 So. 606, 609 (1940). See also Alexion v. Hollingsworth, 289 N. Y. 91, 96-97, 43 N. E. 2d 825, 827 (1942). See generally 87 C. J. S., Trade Unions §§ 42-43, pp. 836-842, 837, n. 39, 838, n. 53 (1954).
Second, just as a union constitution is a “contract” within the plain meaning of § 301 (a), so too is it clear that United Association and Local 334 are “labor organization [s] representing employees in an industry affecting commerce as defined in this chapter.” As defined in the Act, 29 U. S. C. § 152 (5), the term “labor organization” means
“any organization of any kind, or any agency or employee representation committee or plan, in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work.”
We have entertained numerous cases brought under § 301 (a) where one of the parties was an international union, see, e. g., Automobile Workers v. Hoosier Cardinal Corp., 383 U. S. 696 (1966), or a local union, see, e. g., Drake Bakeries, Inc. v. Bakery & Confectionery Workers, 370 U. S. 254 (1962). Indeed, in Carbon Fuel Co. v. Mine Workers, we did not even pause to question the existence of § 301 (a) jurisdiction in a suit brought by a coal company against an international union, an affiliated district union, and three affiliated local unions. 444 U. S., at 214.
If the plain meaning of the “contracts between labor organizations” clause of § 301 (a) supports jurisdiction in the instant case, its legislative history hardly upsets such an interpretation. That is because there is no specific legislative history on that phrase to explain what Congress meant. The provision for suits between labor organizations was inserted late in the bill’s history by the House-Senate Conference Committee. H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 510, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 65-66 (1947), 1 NLRB, Legislative History of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, pp. 569-570 (hereafter Leg. Hist.); 93 Cong. Rec. 6445 (1947); 2 Leg. Hist., at 1535, 1543; see Retail Clerks v. Lion Dry Goods, Inc., 369 U. S. 17, 26 (1962). The Conference Report and postconference debates contain no explanatory remarks about this addition. The only reference to the clause was made in a summary of the Act prepared by Senator Taft and inserted in the Congressional Record, which merely recited: “Section 301 differs from the Senate bill in two respects. Subsection (a) provides that suits for violation of contracts between labor organizations, as well as between a labor organization and an employer, may be brought in the Federal courts.” 93 Cong. Rec. 6445 (1947), 2 Leg. Hist., at 1543.
Relying primarily on decisions from other Courts of Appeals, the Court of Appeals below was “persuaded by the view that disputes between local and parent unions must involve events which potentially have a significant impact on labor-management relations or industrial peace in order for there to be jurisdiction under § 301 (a).” 628 F. 2d, at 818. It is no doubt true that the primary purpose of the Taft-Hartley Act was “to promote the achievement of industrial peace through encouragement and refinement of the collective bargaining process.” Charles Dowd Box Co. v. Courtney, 368 U. S. 502, 509 (1962); see Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U. S. 448, 452-455 (1957). As the Senate observed, “[statutory recognition of the collective agreement as a valid, binding, and enforceable contract . . . will promote a higher degree of responsibility upon the parties to such agreements, and will thereby promote industrial peace.” S. Rep. No. 105, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 17 (1947), 1 Leg. Hist., at 423.
But apparently Congress was also concerned that unions be made legally accountable for agreements into which they entered among themselves, an objective that itself would further stability among labor organizations. Therefore, § 301 (a) provided federal jurisdiction for enforcement of contracts made by labor organizations to counteract jurisdictional defects in many state courts that made it difficult or impossible to bring suits against labor organizations by reason of their status as unincorporated associations. See Charles Dowd Box Co. v. Courtney, supra, at 510; 93 Cong. Rec. 5014 (1947) (comments of Sen. Ball, a floor leader of the bill) (“because unions are voluntary associations, the common law in a great many States requires service on every member of the union, which is very difficult); S. Rep. No. 105, supra, at 15, 1 Leg. Hist., at 421; Comment, Applying the “Contracts Between Labor Organizations” Clause of Taft-Hartley Section 301: A Plea for Restraint, 69 Yale L. J. 299, n. 2 (1959). Surely Congress could conclude that the enforcement of the terms of union constitutions — documents that prescribe the legal relationship and the rights and obligations between the parent and affiliated locals — would contribute to the achievement of labor stability. Since union constitutions were probably the most commonplace form of contract between labor organizations when the Taft-Hartley Act was enacted (and probably still are today), and Congress was obviously familiar with their existence and importance, we cannot believe that Congress would have used the unqualified term “contract” without intending to encompass that category of contracts represented by union constitutions. Nothing in the language and legislative history of § 301 (a) suggests any special qualification or limitation on its reach, and we decline to interpose one ourselves.
Respondent goes even further than the Court of Appeals view that only disputes with a “significant impact” on labor-management relations should trigger § 301 (a) jurisdiction, arguing that § 301 (a) should never extend to disputes arising under union constitutions because “[t]he 80th Congress clearly did not intend to intervene in the internal affairs of labor unions.” Brief for Respondent 16-17. In support of its position, respondent cites several provisions of the Labor Management Relations Act, some general statements in the legislative history, and our decision in NLRB v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co., 388 U. S. 175, 184 (1967), where we observed in connection with § 8 (b)(2) of the Act that “Congress expressly disclaimed . . . any intention to interfere with union self-government or to regulate a union’s internal affairs.” Respondent’s argument falls wide of the mark. There is an obvious and important difference between substantive regulation by the National Labor Relations Board of internal union governance of its membership, and enforcement by the federal courts of freely entered into agreements between separate labor organizations. See Parks v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 314 F. 2d, at 915-916. In discussing the section in the Taft-Hartley Act on unfair labor practices with respect to the employer-union relationship, the House-Senate Conference stated: “Once parties have made a collective bargaining contract the enforcement of that contract should be left to the usual processes of the law and not to the National Labor Relations Board.” H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 510, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 42 (1947) (emphasis added), 1 Leg. Hist., at 546; see Teamsters v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 U. S. 95, 101, n. 9 (1962). Similarly, Congress chose in § 301 (a) to have contracts between labor organizations enforced by the federal courts.
We need not decide today what substantive law is to be applied in § 301 (a) cases involving union constitutions. It is enough to observe that the substantive law to apply “is federal law, which the courts must fashion from the policy of our national labor laws.” Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U. S., at 456. Whether the source of that federal law will be state law, id., at 457, see Automobile Workers v. Hoosier Cardinal Corp., 383 U. S., at 704—705, or other principles can be left to another case. But it is far too late in the day to deny that Congress intended the federal courts to enjoy wide-ranging authority to enforce labor contracts under § 301. We do not need to say that every contract imaginable between labor organizations is within § 301 (a). It is enough to hold, as we do now, that union constitutions are.
Reversed.
United Association has approximately 550 affiliated local unions and 335,000 members in the United States and Canada. 628 F. 2d 812, 813 (CA3 1980).
The plan also transferred plumber members of other locals into Plumbers Local 14, and pipefitter members of other locals into Pipe-fitters Local 274. A third local, representing metal trades employees of the New Jersey Public Service Electric and Gas Co., was also established under the proposed plan. Local 334 members were not involved with this third local.
On behalf of United Association, a hearing officer conducted a hearing at which each of the locals affected by the consolidation plan was allowed to present its view of the plan. Following the hearing, the officer recommended adoption of the proposed consolidation plan to United Association’s general president.
The Local subsequently amended its complaint, alleging in addition that the general president abused his discretion within the meaning of § 86 “by failing to specify facts which would support his conclusion that Local 334 is a 'superfluous’ local union insofar as the Morris County, New Jersey area is concerned or that the elimination of Local 334 would be in the best interests of the United Association, locally or at large.” Amended Complaint, Second Count ¶4, App. 61.
Immediately following removal, Local 334 obtained a temporary restraining order against United Association enjoining enforcement of the order of consolidation. Id., at 66-67. The temporary restraining order was subsequently dissolved when the District Court denied the Local’s request for a preliminary injunction.
In Coronado, one of the issues in the case was whether the International union could be held liable for damages to property caused by a local strike called by an affiliated district organization. The International's constitution provided: “No district shall be permitted to engage in a strike involving all or a major portion of its members, without the sanction of an International Convention or the International Executive Board,” and “Districts may order local strikes within their respective districts on their own responsibility, but where local strikes are to be financed by the International Union, they must be sanctioned by the International Executive Board.” 268 U. S., at 299-300. Chief Justice Taft, writing for the Court, observed that “it must be clearly shown in order to impose . . . liability on [the International union] that what was done was done by their agents in accordance with their fundamental agreement of association.” Id., at 304.
In Smith v. United Mine Workers of America, 493 F. 2d 1241, 1243 (1974) (emphasis added), the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit appeared to suggest that the word “contracts” in § 301 did not encompass union constitutions, although the court also noted that the controversy in that case “relates only to the construction and application of the union constitution and has nothing to do with labor-management relations,” thus leaving open the question whether a constitution affecting labor-management relations might be a “contract” in the view of that court.
The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, without deciding, has given strong indication that a union constitution can be a “contract” within the meaning of §301 (a). In Local Union 1219 v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, 493 F. 2d 93, 96 (1974), the court noted that a charter given by an international to a local union could be a “contract.” The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in 1199 DC, National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees v. National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees, 175 U. S. App. D. C. 70, 72-73, 533 F. 2d 1205, 1207-1208 (1976), asserted that it “need not face the issue whether a union constitution is a § 301 (a) contract,” absent the factual allegation of “actual threats to industrial peace.”
Even respondent concedes that a union constitution is a contract, albeit one “between members and their union and only secondarily . . . between affiliated bodies of a labor organization.” Brief for Respondent 14-15, n. 10.
Congress carefully reviewed data compiled on the laws of the States as to the status of labor organizations as legal entities. See, e. g., S. Rep. No. 105, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 15-18 (1947), 1 Leg. Hist., at 421-424; H. R. Rep. No. 245, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 108-109 (1947), 1 Leg. Hist., at 399-400.
Respondent notes that, “had Congress intended in 1947 to make the provisions of a union's constitution enforceable in federal court, it could easily have done so explicitly.” Brief for Respondent 13, n. 8. We find this a strange suggestion of statutory construction, for Congress specifically left the term “contracts” unqualified and inclusive. We also note that adoption of the “significant impact” test urged by the Court of Appeals would engage the federal courts in the sort of ad hoc judgments on the jurisdictional sufficiency of the pleadings that the unfettered language of § 301 (a) belies.
Sections 8 (a) (3), 8 (b) (1) (A), and 8 (b) (2) of the Act, 29 U. S. C. §§ 158 (a) (3), (b) (1) (A), and (b) (2). For example, § 8 (b) (1) (A) states that “this paragraph shall not impair the right 'of a labor organization to prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership therein.”
For example, Senator Ball, commenting on the proviso in § 8 (b) (1)(A), see n. 11, supra, stated: “It was never the intention of the sponsors of the pending amendment to interfere with the internal affairs or organization of unions.” 93 Cong. Rec. 4272 (1947), 2 Leg. Hist., at 1141.
Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act, 29 U. S. C. § 158 (b) (2), states:
“(b) It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization and its agents—
“(2) to cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an employee in violation of subsection (a) (3) of this section or to discriminate against an employee with respect to whom membership in such organization has been denied or terminated on some ground other than his failure to tender the periodic dues and the initiation fees uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership ...”
Respondent also cites the passage 12 years after the Taft-Hartley Act of the Landrum-Griffin Act of 1959, which we. have described as “the first comprehensive regulation by Congress of the conduct of internal union affairs,” NLRB v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co., 388 U. S., at 193, as confirmation that, in the Taft-Hartley Act, Congress did not contemplate that § 301 (a) would reach union constitutions.
In Allis-Chalmers, the issue was whether §8 (b)(1) (A)’s prohibition of union activity to “restrain or coerce” employees in the exercise of their rights prevented the union from collecting fines from union members who declined to honor an authorized strike. We held that it did not, 388 U. S., at 195, and indeed suggested that the Act allowed court enforcement of reasonable fines, id., at 192-193. Allis-Chalmers thus dealt with substantive regulation by the NLRB of internal union affairs, not with enforcement of pre-existing contracts in the federal courts.
We also need not decide whether individual union members may bring suit on a union constitution against a labor organization. See generally Smith v. Evening News Assn., 371 U. S. 195 (1962). Compare Abrams v. Carrier Corp., 434 F. 2d 1234, 1247 (CA2 1970), cert. denied sub nom. Steelworkers v. Abrams, 401 U. S. 1009 (1971), with Trail v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 542 F. 2d 961, 968 (CA6 1976).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We are required once again to interpret the provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) chapter of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (OCCA), Pub. L. 91-452, Title IX, 84 Stat. 941, as amended, 18 U. S. C. §§ 1961-1968 (1988 ed. and Supp. IV). Section 1962(c) prohibits any person associated with an enterprise from conducting its affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity. We granted certiorari to determine whether RICO requires proof that either the racketeering enterprise or the predicate acts of racketeering were motivated by an economic purpose. We hold that RICO requires no such economic motive.
I
Petitioner National Organization for Women, Inc. (NOW), is a national nonprofit organization that supports the legal availability of abortion; petitioners Delaware Women’s Health Organization, Inc. (DWHO), and Summit Women’s .Health Organization, Inc. (SWHO), are health care centers that perform abortions and other medical procedures. Respondents are a coalition of antiabortion groups called the Pro-Life Action Network (PLAN), Joseph Scheidler and other individuals and organizations that oppose legal abortion, and a medical laboratory that formerly provided services to the two petitioner health care centers.
Petitioners sued respondents in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging violations of the Sherman Act, 26 Stat. 209, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 1 et seq., and RICO’s §§ 1962(a), (c), and (d), as well as several pendent state-law claims stemming from the activities of antiabortion protesters at the clinics. According to respondent Scheidler’s congressional testimony, these protesters aim to shut down the clinics and persuade women not to have abortions. See, e. g., Abortion Clinic Violence, Oversight Hearings before the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 99th Cong., 1st and 2d Sess., 55 (1987) (statement of Joseph M. Scheidler, Executive Director, Pro-Life Action League). Petitioners sought injunctive relief, along with treble damages, costs, and attorney’s fees. They later amended their complaint, and pursuant to local rules, filed a “RICO Case Statement” that further detailed the enterprise, the pattern of racketeering, the victims of the racketeering activity, and the participants involved.
The amended complaint alleged that respondents were members of a nationwide conspiracy to shut down abortion clinics through a pattern of racketeering activity including extortion in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U. S. C. § 1951. Section 1951(b)(2) defines extortion as “the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.” Petitioners alleged that respondents conspired to use threatened or actual force, violence, or fear to induce clinic employees, doctors, and patients to give up their jobs, give up their economic right to practice medicine, and give up their right to obtain medical services at the clinics. App. 66, Second Amended Complaint ¶ 97. Petitioners claimed that this conspiracy “has injured the business and/or property interests of the [petitioners].” Id., at 72, ¶ 104. According to the amended complaint, PLAN constitutes the alleged racketeering “enterprise” for purposes of § 1962(c). Id., at 72-73, ¶¶ 107-109.
The District Court dismissed the case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Citing Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U. S. 127 (1961), it held that since the activities alleged “involve[d] political opponents, not commercial competitors, and political objectives, not marketplace goals,” the Sherman Act did not apply. 765 F. Supp. 937, 941 (ND Ill. 1991). It dismissed petitioners’ RICO claims under § 1962(a) because the “income” alleged by petitioners consisted of voluntary donations from persons opposed to abortion which “in no way were derived from the pattern of racketeering alleged in the complaint.” Ibid. - The District Court then concluded that petitioners failed to state a claim under § 1962(c) since “an economic motive requirement exists to the extent that some profit-generating purpose must be alleged in order to state a RICO claim.” Id., at 943. Finally, it dismissed petitioners’ RICO conspiracy claim under § 1962(d) since petitioners’ other RICO claims could not stand.
The Court of Appeals affirmed. 968 F. 2d 612 (CA7 1992). As to the RICO counts, it agreed with the District Court that the voluntary contributions received by respondents did not constitute income derived from racketeering activities for purposes of § 1962(a). Id., at 625. It adopted the analysis of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in United States v. Ivic, 700 F. 2d 51 (1983), which found an “economic motive” requirement implicit in the “enterprise” element of the offense. The Court of Appeals determined that “non-economic crimes committed in furtherance of non-economic motives are not within the ambit of RICO.” 968 F. 2d, at 629. Consequently, petitioners failed to state a claim under § 1962(c). The Court of Appeals also affirmed dismissal of the RICO conspiracy claim under § 1962(d).
We granted certiorari, 508 U. S. 971 (1993), to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals on the putative economic motive requirement of 18 U. S. C. §§ 1962(c) and (d). Compare United States v. Ivic, supra, and United States v. Flynn, 852 F. 2d 1045, 1052 (CA8), (“For purposes of RICO, an enterprise must be directed toward an economic goal”), cert. denied, 488 U. S. 974 (1988), with Northeast Women’s Center, Inc. v. McMonagle, 868 F. 2d 1342 (CA3) (because the predicate offense does not require economic motive, RICO requires no additional economic motive), cert. denied, 493 U. S. 901 (1989).
II
We first address the threshold question raised by respondents whether petitioners have standing to bring their claim. Standing represents a jurisdictional requirement which remains open to review at all stages of the litigation. Bender v. Williamsport Area School Dist., 475 U. S. 534, 546-547 (1986). Respondents are correct that only DWHO and SWHO, and not NOW, have sued under RICO. Despite the fact that the clinics attempted to bring the RICO claim as class actions, DWHO and SWHO must themselves have standing. Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U. S. 26, 40, n. 20 (1976), citing Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 502 (1975). Respondents are wrong, however, in asserting that the complaint alleges no “injury” to DWHO and SWHO “fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U. S. 737, 751 (1984).
We have held that “[a]t the pleading stage, general factual allegations of injury resulting from the defendant’s conduct may suffice, for on a motion to dismiss we presume that general allegations embrace those specific facts that are necessary to support the claim.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 561 (1992) (citations omitted). The District Court dismissed petitioners’ claim at the pleading stage pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), so their complaint must be sustained if relief could be granted “under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations.” Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U. S. 69, 73 (1984). DWHO and SWHO alleged in their complaint that respondents conspired to use force to induce clinic staff and patients to stop working and obtain medical services elsewhere. App. 66, Second Amended Complaint ¶ 97. Petitioners claimed that this conspiracy “has injured the business and/or property interests of the [petitioners].” Id., at 72, ¶ 104. In addition, petitioners claimed that respondent Scheidler threatened DWHO’s clinic administrator with reprisals if she refused to quit her job at the clinic. Id., at 68, ¶ 98(g). Paragraphs 106 and 110 of petitioners’ complaint incorporate these allegations into the § 1962(c) claim. Id., at 72, 73. Nothing more is needed to confer standing on DWHO and SWHO at the pleading stage.
111
We turn to the question whether the racketeering enterprise or the racketeering predicate acts must be accompanied by an underlying economic motive. Section 1962(c) makes it unlawful “for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.” Section 1961(1) defines “pattern of racketeering activity” to include conduct that is “chargeable” or “indictable” under a host of state and federal laws. RICO broadly defines “enterprise” in § 1961(4) to “includ[e] any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity.” Nowhere in either § 1962(c) or the RICO definitions in § 1961 is there any indication that an economic motive is required.
The phrase “any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce” comes the closest of any language in subsection (c) to suggesting a need for an economic motive. Arguably an enterprise engaged in interstate or foreign commerce would have a profit-seeking motive, but the language in § 1962(c) does not stop there; it includes enterprises whose activities “affect” interstate or foreign commerce. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 35 (1969) defines “affect” as “to have a detrimental influence on — used especially in the phrase affecting commerce.” An enterprise surely can have a detrimental influence on interstate or foreign commerce without having its own profit-seeking motives.
The Court of Appeals thought that the use of the term “enterprise” in §§ 1962(a) and (b), where it is arguably more tied in with economic motivation, should be applied to restrict the breadth of use of that term in § 1962(e). 968 F. 2d, at 629. Respondents agree and point to our comment in Sedima, S. P. R. L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U. S. 479, 489 (1985), regarding the term “violation,” that “[w]e should not lightly infer that Congress intended the term [violation] to have wholly different meanings in neighboring subsections.”
We do not believe that the usage of the term “enterprise” in subsections (a) and (b) leads to the inference that an economic motive is required in subsection (c). The term “enterprise” in subsections (a) and (b) plays a different role in the structure of those subsections than it does in subsection (c). Section 1962(a) provides that it “shall be unlawful for any person who has received any income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity ... to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such income, or the proceeds of such income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of, any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.” Correspondingly, § 1962(b) states that it “shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.” The “enterprise” referred to in subsections (a) and (b) is thus something acquired through the use of illegal activities or by money obtained from illegal activities. The enterprise in these subsections is the victim of unlawful activity and may very well be a “profit-seeking” entity that represents a property interest and may be acquired. But the statutory language in subsections (a) and (b) does not mandate that the enterprise be a “profit-seeking” entity; it simply requires that the enterprise be an entity that was acquired through illegal activity or the money generated from illegal activity.
By contrast, the “enterprise” in subsection (c) connotes generally the vehicle through which the unlawful pattern of racketeering activity is committed, rather than the victim of that activity. Subsection (c) makes it unlawful for “any person employed by or associated with any enterprise ... to conduct or participate ... in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity. . . .” Consequently, since the enterprise in subsection (c) is not being acquired, it need not have a property interest that can be acquired nor an economic motive for engaging in illegal activity; it need only be an association in fact that engages in a pattern of racketeering activity. Nothing in subsections (a) and (b) directs us to a contrary conclusion.
The Court of Appeals also relied on the reasoning of United States v. Bagaric, 706 F. 2d 42 (CA2), cert. denied, 464 U. S. 840 (1983), to support its conclusion that subsection (c) requires an economic motive. In upholding the convictions, under RICO, of members of a political terrorist group, the Bagaric court relied in part on the congressional statement of findings which prefaces RICO and refers to the activities of groups that “ ‘drai[n] billions of dollars from America’s economy by unlawful conduct and the illegal use of force, fraud, and corruption.’” 706 F. 2d, at 57, n. 13 (quoting QCCA, 84 Stat. 922). The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided that the sort of activity thus condemned required an economic motive.
We do not think this is so. Respondents and the two Courts of Appeals, we think, overlook the fact that predicate acts, such as the alleged extortion, may not benefit the protesters financially but still may drain money from the economy by harming businesses such as the clinics which are petitioners in this case.
We also think that the quoted statement of congressional findings is a rather thin reed upon which to base a requirement of economic motive neither expressed nor, we think, fairly implied in the operative sections of the Act. As we said in H. J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co., 492 U. S. 229, 248 (1989): “The occasion for Congress’ action was the perceived need to combat organized crime. But Congress for cogent reasons chose to enact a more general statute, one which, although it had organized crime as its focus, was not limited in application to organized crime.”
In United States v. Turkette, 452 U. S. 576 (1981), we faced the analogous question whether “enterprise” as used in §1961(4) should be confined to “legitimate” enterprises. Looking to the statutory language, we found that “[t]here is no restriction upon the associations embraced by the definition: an enterprise includes any union or group of individuals associated in fact.” Id., at 580. Accordingly, we resolved that § 1961(4)’s definition of “enterprise” “appears to include both legitimate and illegitimate enterprises within its scope; it no more excludes criminal enterprises than it does legitimate ones.” Id., at 580-581. We noted that Congress could easily have narrowed the sweep of the term “enterprise” by inserting a single word, “legitimate.” Id., at 581. Instead, Congress did nothing to indicate that “enterprise” should exclude those entities whose sole purpose was criminal.
The parallel to the present case is apparent. Congress has not, either in the definitional section or in the operative language, required that an “enterprise” in § 1962(c) have an economic motive.
The Court of Appeals also found persuasive guidelines for RICO prosecutions issued by the Department of Justice in 1981. The guidelines provided that a RICO indictment should not charge an association as an enterprise, unless the association exists “‘for the purpose of maintaining operations directed toward an economic goal . . . .’” United States v. Ivic, 700 F. 2d, at 64, quoting U. S. Dept. of Justice, United States Attorneys’ Manual §9-110.360 (1984) (emphasis added). The Second Circuit believed these guidelines were entitled to deference under administrative law principles. See 700 F. 2d, at 64. Whatever may be the appropriate deference afforded to such internal rules, see, e. g., Crandon v. United States, 494 U. S. 152, 177 (1990) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment), for our purposes we need note only that the Department of Justice amended its guidelines in 1984. The amended guidelines provide that an association-in-fact enterprise must be “directed toward an economic or other identifiable goal.” U. S. Dept. of Justice, United States Attorney’s Manual §9-110.360 (Mar. 9, 1984) (emphasis added).
Both parties rely on legislative history , to support their positions. We believe the statutory language is unambiguous and find in the parties’ submissions respecting legislative history no such “clearly expressed legislative intent to the contrary” that would warrant a different construction. Reves v. Ernst & Young, 507 U. S. 170, 177 (1993), citing United States v. Turkette, supra, at 580, quoting Consumer Product Safety Comm’n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U. S. 102, 108 (1980).
Respondents finally argue that the result here should be controlled by the rule of lenity in criminal cases. But the rule of lenity applies only when an ambiguity is present; “ fit is not used to beget one. . . . The rule comes into operation at the end of the process of construing what Congress has expressed, not at the beginning as an overriding consideration of being lenient to wrongdoers.”’ Turkette, supra, at 587-588, n. 10, quoting Callanan v. United States, 364 U. S. 587, 596 (1961) (footnote omitted). We simply do not think there is an ambiguity here which would suffice to invoke the rule of lenity. “ ‘[T]he fact that RICO has been applied in situations not expressly anticipated by Congress does not demonstrate ambiguity. It demonstrates breadth.’” Sedima, 473 U. S., at 499 (quoting Haroco, Inc. v. American Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago, 747 F. 2d 384, 398 (CA7 1984)).
We therefore hold that petitioners may maintain this action if respondents conducted the enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity. The questions whether respondents committed the requisite predicate acts, and whether the commission of these acts fell into a pattern, are not before us. We hold only that RICO contains no economic motive requirement.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly
Reversed.
The other respondents named in the complaint include the following: John Patrick Ryan, Randall A. Terry, Andrew Scholberg, Conrad Wojnar, Timothy Murphy, Monica Migliorino, Vital-Med Laboratories, Inc., Pro-Life Action League, Inc. (PLAL), Pro-Life Direct Action League, Inc. (PDAL), Operation Rescue, and Project Life.
The Hobbs Act, 18 U. S. C. § 1951(a), provides: “Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.” Respondents contend that petitioners are unable to show that their actions violated the Hobbs Act. We do not reach that issue and express no opinion upon it.
NOW sought class certification for itself, its women members who use or may use the targeted health centers, and other women who use or may use the services of such centers. The District Court did not certify the class, apparently deferring its ruling until resolution of the motions to dismiss. All pending motions were dismissed as moot when the court granted respondents’ motion to dismiss. 765 F. Supp. 937, 945 (ND Ill. 1991).
Section 1961(1) provides: ‘“racketeering activity’ means (A) any act or threat involving murder, kidnaping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in narcotic or other dangerous drugs, which is chargeable under State law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year; (B) any act which is indictable under any of the following provisions of title 18, United States Code: Section 201 (relating to bribery), section 224 (relating to sports bribery), sections 471, 472, and 473 (relating to counterfeiting), section 659 (relating to theft from interstate shipment) if the act indictable under section 659 is felonious, section 664 (relating to embezzlement from pension and welfare funds), sections 891-894 (relating to extortionate credit transactions), section 1029 (relating to fraud and related activity in connection with access devices), section 1084 (relating to the transmission of gambling information), section 1341 (relating to mail fraud), section 1343 (relating to wire fraud), section 1344 (relating to financial institution fraud), sections 1461-1465 (relating to obscene matter), section 1503 (relating to obstruction of justice), section 1510 (relating to obstruction of criminal investigations), section 1511 (relating to the obstruction of State or local law enforcement), section 1512 (relating to tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant), section 1513 (relating to retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant), section 1951 (relating to interference with commerce, robbery, or extortion), section 1952 (relating to racketeering)... (C) any act which is indictable under title 29, United States Code, section 186 (dealing with restrictions on payments and loans to labor organizations) or section 501(c) (relating to embezzlement from union funds), (D) any offense involving fraud connected with a ease under title 11, fraud in the sale of securities, or the felonious manufacture, importation, receiving, concealment, buying, selling, or otherwise dealing in narcotic or other dangerous drugs, punishable under any law of the United States ...
One commentator uses the terms “prize,” “instrument,” “victim,” and “perpetrator” to describe the four separate roles the enterprise may play in §1962. See Blakey, The RICO Civil Fraud Action in Context: Reflections on Bennett v. Berg, 58 Notre Dame L. Rev. 237, 307-325 (1982).
Several of the respondents and several amici argue that application of RICO to antiabortion protesters could chill legitimate expression protected by the First Amendment. However, the question presented for review asked simply whether the Court should create an unwritten requirement limiting RICO to cases where either the enterprise or racketeering activity has an overriding economic motive. None of the respondents made a constitutional argument as to the proper construction of RICO in the Court of Appeals, and their constitutional argument here is directed almost entirely to the nature of their activities, rather than to the construction of RICO. We therefore decline to address the First Amendment question argued by respondents and the amici.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | E | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The False Claims Act, 31 U. S. C. §§ 3729-3733, eliminates federal-court jurisdiction over actions under § 3730 of the Act that are based upon the public disclosure of allegations or transactions “unless the action is brought by the Attorney General or the person bringing the action is an original source of the information.” § 3730(e)(4)(A). We decide whether respondent James Stone was an original source.
I
The mixture of concrete and pond sludge that is the subject of this case has taken nearly two decades to seep, so to speak, into this Court. Given the long history and the complexity of this litigation, it is well to describe the facts in some detail.
A
From 1975 through 1989, petitioner Rockwell International Corp. was under a management and operating contract with the Department of Energy (DOE) to run the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant in Colorado. The most significant portion of Rockwell’s compensation came in the form of a semiannual “‘award fee,’” the amount of which depended on DOE’s evaluation of Rockwell’s performance in a number of areas, including environmental, safety, and health concerns. United States ex rel. Stone v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 92 Fed. Appx. 708, 714 (CA10 2004).
From November 1980 through March 1986, James Stone worked as an engineer at the Rocky Flats plant. In the early 1980’s, Rockwell explored the possibility of disposing of the toxic pond sludge that accumulated in solar evaporation ponds at the facility, by mixing it with cement. The idea was to pour the mixture into large rectangular boxes, where it would solidify into “pondcrete” blocks that could be stored onsite or transported to other sites for disposal.
Stone reviewed a proposed manufacturing process for pondcrete in 1982. He concluded that the proposal “would not work,” App. 175, and communicated that conclusion to Rockwell management in a written “Engineering Order.” As Stone would later explain, he believed “the suggested process would result in an unstable mixture that would later deteriorate and cause unwanted release of toxic wastes to the environment.” Ibid. He believed this because he “foresaw that the piping system” that extracted sludge from the solar ponds “would not properly remove the sludge and would lead to an inadequate mixture of sludge/waste and cement such that the ‘pond crete’ blocks would rapidly disintegrate thus creating additional contamination problems.” Id., at 290.
Notwithstanding Stone’s prediction, Rockwell proceeded with its pondcrete project and successfully manufactured “concrete hard” pondcrete during the period of Stone’s employment at Rocky Flats. It was only after Stone was laid off in March 1986 that what the parties have called “insolid” pondcrete blocks were discovered. According to respondents, Rockwell knew by October 1986 that a substantial number of pondcrete blocks were insolid, but DOE did not become aware of the problem until May 1988, when several pondcrete blocks began to leak, leading to the discovery of thousands of other insolid blocks. The media reported these discoveries, 3 Appellants’ App. in No. 99-1351 etc. (CA10), pp. 889-38 to 889-39, and attributed the malfunction to Rockwell’s reduction of the ratio of concrete to sludge in the mixture.
In June 1987, more than a year after he had left Rockwell’s employ, Stone went to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) with allegations of environmental crimes at Rocky Flats during the time of his employment. According to the court below, Stone alleged that
“contrary to public knowledge, Rocky Flats accepted hazardous and nuclear waste from other DOE facilities; that Rockwell employees were ‘forbidden from discussing any controversies in front of a DOE employee’; that although Rocky Flats’ fluid bed incinerators failed testing in 1981, the pilot incinerator remained on line and was used to incinerate wastes daily since 1981, including plutonium wastes which were then sent out for burial; that Rockwell distilled and fractionated various oils and solvents although the wastes were geared for incineration; that Stone believed that the ground water was contaminated from previous waste burial and land application, and that hazardous waste lagoons tended to overflow during and after ‘a good rain,’ causing hazardous wastes to be discharged without first being treated.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 4a.
Stone provided the FBI with 2,300 pages of documents, buried among which was his 1982 engineering report predicting that the pondcrete-system design would not work. Stone did not discuss his pondcrete allegations with the FBI in their conversations.
Based in part on information allegedly learned from Stone, the Government obtained a search warrant for Rocky Flats, and on June 6, 1989, 75 FBI and Environmental Protection Agency agents raided the facility. The affidavit in support of the warrant included allegations (1) that pondcrete blocks were insolid “due to an inadequate waste-concrete mixture,” App. 429, (2) that Rockwell obtained award fees based on its alleged “ ‘excellent’ ” management of Rocky Flats, id., at 98, and (3) that Rockwell made false statements and concealed material facts in violation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), 90 Stat. 2811, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 6928, and 18 U. S. C. § 1001. Newspapers published these allegations. In March 1992, Rockwell pleaded guilty to 10 environmental violations, including the knowing storage of insolid pondcrete blocks in violation of RCRA. Rockwell agreed to pay $18.5 million in fines.
B
In July 1989, Stone filed a qui tam suit under the False Claims Act. That Act prohibits false or fraudulent claims for payment to the United States, 31 U. S. C. § 3729(a), and authorizes civil actions to remedy such fraud to be brought by the Attorney General, § 3730(a), or by private individuals in the Government’s name, § 3730(b)(1). The Act provides, however, that “[n]o court shall have jurisdiction over an action under this section based upon the public disclosure of allegations or transactions... from the news media, unless the action is brought by the Attorney General or the person bringing the action is an original source of the information.” § 3730(e)(4)(A). An “original source” is “an individual who has direct and independent knowledge of the information on which the allegations are based and has voluntarily provided the information to the Government before filing an action under this section which is based on the information.” § 3730(e)(4)(B).
Stone’s complaint alleged that Rockwell was required to comply with certain federal and state environmental laws and regulations, including RCRA; that Rockwell committed numerous violations of these laws and regulations throughout the 1980’s; and that, in order to induce the Government to make payments or approvals under Rockwell’s contract, Rockwell knowingly presented false and fraudulent claims to the Government in violation of the False Claims Act, 31 U. S. C. § 3729(a). As required under the Act, Stone filed his complaint under seal and simultaneously delivered to the Government a confidential disclosure statement describing “substantially all material evidence and information” in his possession, § 3730(b)(2). The statement identified 26 environmental and safety issues, only one of which involved pondcrete. With respect to that issue, Stone explained in his statement that he had reviewed the design for the pondcrete system and had foreseen that the piping mechanism would not properly remove the sludge, which in turn would lead to an inadequate mixture of sludge and cement.
In December 1992, Rockwell moved to dismiss Stone’s action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that the action was based on publicly disclosed allegations and that Stone was not an original source. The District Court denied the motion because, in its view, “Stone had direct and independent knowledge that Rockwell’s compensation was linked to its compliance with environmental, health and safety regulations and that it allegedly concealed its deficient performance so that it would continue to receive payments.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 61a.
The Government initially declined to intervene in Stone’s action, but later reversed course, and in November 1996, the District Court granted the Government’s intervention. Several weeks later, at the suggestion of the District Court, the Government and Stone filed a joint amended complaint. As relevant here, the amended complaint alleged that Rockwell violated RCRA by storing leaky pondcrete blocks, but did not allege that any defect in the piping system (as predicted by Stone) caused insolid pondcrete. Respondents clarified their allegations even further in a statement of claims which became part of the final pretrial order and which superseded their earlier pleadings. This said that the pondcrete’s insolidity was due to “an incorrect cement/sludge ratio used in pondcrete operations, as well as due to inadequate process controls and inadequate inspection procedures.” App. 470. It continued:
“During the winter of 1986, Rockwell replaced its then pondcrete foreman, Norman Fryback, with Ron Teel. Teel increased pondcrete production rates in part by, among other things, reducing the amount of cement added to the blocks. Following the May 23, 1988 spill, Rockwell acknowledged that this reduced cement-to-sludge ratio was a major contributor to the existence of insufficiently solid pondcrete blocks on the storage pads.” Id., at 476-477.
The statement of claims again did not mention the piping problem asserted by Stone years earlier.
Respondents’ False Claims Act claims went to trial in 1999. None of the witnesses Stone had identified during discovery as having relevant knowledge testified at trial. And none of the documents Stone provided to the Government with his confidential disclosure statement was introduced in evidence at trial. Nor did respondents allege at trial that the defect in the piping system predicted by Stone caused insolid pondcrete. To the contrary, during closing arguments both Stone’s counsel and the Government’s counsel repeatedly explained to the jury that the pondcrete failed because Rockwell’s new foreman used an insufficient cement-to-sludge ratio in an effort to increase pondcrete production.
The verdict form divided the False Claims Act count into several different claims corresponding to different award-fee periods. The jury found in favor of respondents for the three periods covering, the pondcrete allegations (April 1, 1987, to September 30, 1988), and found for Rockwell as to the remaining periods. The jury awarded damages of $1,390,775.80, which the District Court trebled pursuant to 31 U. S. C. § 3729(a).
Rockwell filed a postverdict motion to dismiss Stone’s claims under § 3730(e)(4), arguing that the claims were based on publicly disclosed allegations and that Stone was not an original source. In response, Stone acknowledged that his successful claims were based on publicly disclosed allegations, but asserted original-source status. The District Court agreed with Stone. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed in relevant part, but remanded the case for the District Court to determine whether Stone had disclosed his information to the Government before filing his qui tam action, as § 3730(e)(4)(B) required. On remand, the District Court found that Stone had produced the 1982 engineering order to the Government, but that the order was insufficient to communicate Stone’s allegations. The District Court also found that Stone had not carried his burden of proving that he orally informed the FBI about his allegations before filing suit. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit disagreed with the District Court’s conclusion and held (over the dissent of Judge Briscoe) that the 1982 engineering order sufficed to carry Stone’s burden of persuasion. 92 Fed. Appx. 708. We granted certiorari, 548 U. S. 941 (2006), to decide whether Stone was an original source.
II
Section 3730(e)(4)(A) provides:
“No court shall have jurisdiction over an action under this section based upon the public disclosure of allegations or transactions in a criminal, civil, or administrative hearing, in a congressional, administrative, or Government Accounting Office report, hearing, audit, or investigation, or from the news media, unless the action is brought by the Attorney General or the person bringing the action is an original source of the information.” (Footnote omitted.)
As discussed above, § 3730(e)(4)(B) defines “original source” as “an individual who [1] has direct and independent knowledge of the information on which the allegations are based and [2] has voluntarily provided the information to the Government before filing an action under this section which is based on the information.” As this cáse comes to the Court, it is conceded that the claims on which Stone prevailed were based upon publicly disclosed allegations within the meaning of § 3730(e)(4)(A). The question is whether Stone qualified under the original-source exception to the public-disclosure bar.
We begin with the possibility that little analysis is required in this case, for Stone asserts that Rockwell conceded his original-source status. Rockwell responds that it conceded no such thing and that, even had it done so, the concession would have been irrelevant because § 3730(e)(4) is jurisdictional. We agree with the latter proposition. It is true enough that the word “jurisdiction” does not in every context connote subject-matter jurisdiction. Noting that “jurisdiction” is “ ‘a word of many, too many, meanings,’ ” we concluded in Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U. S. 83 (1998), that establishing the elements of an offense was not made a jurisdictional matter merely because the statute creating the cause of action was phrased as providing for “jurisdiction” over such suits. Id., at 90 (quoting United States v. Vanness, 85 F. 3d 661, 663, n. 2 (CADC 1996)). Here, however, the issue is not whether casting the creation of a cause of action in jurisdictional terms somehow limits the general grant of jurisdiction under which that cause of action would normally be brought, but rather whether a clear and explicit withdrawal of jurisdiction withdraws jurisdiction. It undoubtedly does so. Just last Term we stated that, “[i]f the Legislature clearly states that a threshold limitation on a statute’s scope shall count as jurisdictional, then courts and litigants will be duly instructed and will not be left to wrestle with the issue.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U. S. 500, 515-516 (2006) (footnote omitted). Here the jurisdictional nature of the original-source requirement is clear ex visceribus verborum. Indeed, we have already stated that § 3730(e)(4) speaks to “the power of a particular court” as well as “the substantive rights of the parties.” Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States ex rel. Schumer, 520 U. S. 939, 951 (1997).
Stone’s contrary position rests entirely on dicta from a single Court of Appeals decision, see United States ex rel. Fallon v. Accudyne Corp., 97 F. 3d 937, 940-941 (CA7 1996). Accudyne thought it significant that jurisdiction over False Claims Act cases is conferred by 28 U. S. C. §§ 1331 and 1345 (the federal-question and United-States-as-plaintiff provisions of the Judicial Code) and 31 U. S. C. § 3732(a) (the provision of the False Claims Act establishing federal-court venue and conferring federal-court jurisdiction over related state-law claims), rather than § 3730, which is the “section” referenced in § 3730(e)(4). To eliminate jurisdiction, the court believed, it is those jurisdiction-conferring sections that would have to be referenced. We know of nothing in logic or authority to support this. The jurisdiction-removing provision here does not say “no court shall have jurisdiction under this section,” but rather “no court shall have jurisdiction over an action under this section.” That is surely the most natural way to achieve the desired result of eliminating jurisdiction over a category of False Claims Act actions — rather than listing all the conceivable provisions of the United States Code whose conferral of jurisdiction is being eliminated. (In addition to the provisions cited by the Accudyne court, one might also have to mention the diversity-jurisdiction provision, 28 U. S. C. § 1332, and the supplemental-jurisdiction provision, § 1367.) Accudyne next observed that the public-disclosure bar limits only who may speak for the United States on a subject and who if anyone gets a financial reward, not the “categories of disputes that may be resolved (a real ‘jurisdictional’ limit).” 97 F. 3d, at 941. But this is a classic begging of the question, which is precisely whether there has been removed from the courts’ jurisdiction that category of disputes consisting of False Claims Act qui tam suits based on publicly disclosed allegations as to which the relator is not an original source of the information. Nothing prevents Congress from defining the “category” of excluded suits in any manner it wishes. See, e. g., 28 U. S. C. § 1500 (no jurisdiction over “any claim for or in respect to which the plaintiff... has pending in any other court any suit... against the United States”). Lastly, Accudyne asserted that “the Supreme Court had held that a similar reference to jurisdiction in the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U. S. C. §§ 101, 104, limits remedies rather than subject-matter jurisdiction.” 97 F. 3d, at 941 (citing Burlington Northern R. Co. v. Maintenance of Way Employes, 481 U. S. 429, 444-446 (1987)). But the language of the Norris-LaGuardia Act is in fact not similar. It provides that “[n]o court of the United States shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or temporary or permanent injunction in any case involving or growing out of any labor dispute...,” 29 U. S. C. § 104 (emphasis added). It is fa-dally a limitation upon the relief that can be accorded, not a removal of jurisdiction over “any case involving or growing out of a labor dispute.” Here, by contrast, the text says “[n]o court shall have jurisdiction over an action under this section.”
Whether the point was conceded or not, therefore, we may, and indeed must, decide whether Stone met the jurisdictional requirement of being an original source.
III
We turn to the first requirement of original-source status, that the relator have “direct and independent knowledge of the information on which the allegations are based.” 31 U. S. C. § 3730(e)(4)(B). Because we have not previously addressed this provision, several preliminary questions require our attention.
A
First, does the phrase “information on which the allegations are based” refer to the information on which the relator's allegations are based or the information on which the publicly disclosed allegations that triggered the public-disclosure bar are based? The parties agree it is the former. See Brief for Petitioners 26, n. 13; Brief for United States 24, and n. 8; Brief for Respondent Stone 15,21. But in view of our conclusion that f'3730(e)(4) is jurisdictional, we must satisfy ourselves that the parties’ position is correct.
Though the question is hardly free from doubt, we agree that the “information” to which subparagraph (B) speaks is the information upon which the relators’ allegations are based. To begin with, subparagraph (B) standing on its own suggests that disposition. The relator must have “direct and independent knowledge of the information on which the allegations are based,” and he must “provid[e] the information to the Government before filing an action under this section which is based on the information.” Surely the information one would expect a relator to “provide to the Government before filing an action... based on the information” is the information underlying the relator’s claims.
Subparagraph (A) complicates matters. As described earlier, it bars actions based on the “public disclosure of allegations or transactions” and provides an exception for cases brought by “an original source of the information.” If the allegations referred to in subparagraph (B)’s phrase requiring “direct and independent knowledge of the information on which the allegations are based” are the same “allegations” referred to in subparagraph (A), then original-source status would depend on knowledge of information underlying the publicly disclosed allegations. The principal textual difficulty with that interpretation is that subparagraph (A) does not speak simply of “allegations,” but of “allegations or transactions.” Had Congress wanted to link original-source status to information underlying the public disclosure, it would surely have used the identical phrase, “allegations or transactions”; there is no conceivable reason to require direct and independent knowledge of publicly disclosed allegations but not of publicly disclosed transactions.
The sense of the matter offers strong additional support for this interpretation. Section 3730(e)(4)(A) bars actions based on publicly disclosed allegations whether or not the information on which those allegations are based has been made public. It is difficult to understand why Congress would care whether a relator knows about the information underlying a publicly disclosed allegation (e. g., what a confidential source told a newspaper reporter about insolid pondcrete) when the relator has direct and independent knowledge of different information supporting the same allegation (e. g., that a defective process would inevitably lead to insolid pondcrete). Not only would that make little sense, it would raise nettlesome procedural problems, placing courts in the position of comparing the relator’s information with the often unknowable information on which the public disclosure was based. Where that latter information has not been disclosed (by reason, for example, of a reporter’s desire to protect his source), the relator would presumably be out of court. To bar a relator with direct and independent knowledge of information underlying his allegations just because no one can know what information underlies the similar allegations of some other person simply makes no sense.
The contrary conclusion of some lower courts rests on the following logic: The term “information” in subparagraph (B) must be read in tandem with the term “information” in sub-paragraph (A), and the term “information” in subparagraph (A) refers to the information on which the publicly disclosed allegations are based. See, e. g., United States ex rel. Laird v. Lockheed Martin Eng. & Science Servs. Co., 336 F. 3d 346, 354 (CA5 2003). The major premise of this reasoning seems true enough: “information” in (A) and (B) means the same thing. The minor premise, however — that “information” in (A) refers to the information underlying the publicly disclosed allegations or transactions — is highly questionable. The complete phrase at issue is “unless... the person bringing the action is an original source of the information.” It seems to us more likely (in light of the analysis set forth above) that the information in question is the information underlying the action referred to a few words earlier, to wit, the action “based upon the public disclosure of allegations or transactions” referred to at the beginning of the provision. On this interpretation, “information” in subparagraph (A) and “information on which the allegations are based” in sub-paragraph (B) are one and the same, viz., information underlying the allegations of the relator’s action.
B
Having determined that the phrase “information on which the allegations are based” refers to the relator’s allegations and not the publicly disclosed allegations, we confront more textual ambiguity: Which of the relator’s allegations are the relevant ones? Stone’s allegations changed during the course of the litigation, yet he asks that we look only to his original complaint. Rockwell argues that Stone must satisfy the original-source exception through all stages of the litigation.
In our view, the term “allegations” is not limited to the allegations of the original complaint. It includes (at a minimum) the allegations in the original complaint as amended. The statute speaks not of the allegations in the “original complaint” (or even the allegations in the “complaint”), but of the relator’s “allegations” simpliciter. Absent some limitation of § 3730(e)(4)’s requirement to the relator’s initial complaint, we will not infer one. Such a limitation would leave the relator free to plead a trivial theory of fraud for which he had some direct and independent knowledge and later amend the complaint to include theories copied from the public domain or from materials in the Government’s possession. Even the Government concedes that new allegations regarding a fundamentally different fraudulent scheme require reevaluation of the court’s jurisdiction. See Brief for United States 40; Tr. of Oral Arg. 40.
The rule that subject-matter jurisdiction “depends on the state of things at the time of the action brought,” Mollan v. Torrance, 9 Wheat. 537, 539 (1824), does not suggest a different interpretation. The state of things and the originally alleged state of things are not synonymous; demonstration that the original allegations were false will defeat jurisdiction. Anderson v. Watt, 138 U. S. 694, 701 (1891); Morris v. Gilmer, 129 U. S. 315, 326 (1889). So also will the withdrawal of those allegations, unless they are replaced by others that establish jurisdiction. Thus, when a plaintiff files a complaint in federal court and then voluntarily amends the complaint, courts look to the amended complaint to determine jurisdiction. See Wellness Community-Nat. v. Wellness House, 70 F. 3d 46, 49 (CA7 1995); Boelens v. Redman Homes, Inc., 759 F. 2d 504, 508 (CA5 1985).
Here, we have not only an amended complaint, but a final pretrial order that superseded all prior pleadings and “confronted] the subsequent course of the action,” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 16(e). See Curtis v. Loether, 415 U. S. 189, 190, n. 1 (1974) (where a claim was not included in the complaint, but was included in the pretrial order, “it is irrelevant that the pleadings were never formally amended” (citing Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. 15(b), 16)); Wilson v. Muckala, 303 F. 3d 1207, 1215 (CA10 2002) (“[C]laims, issues, defenses, or theories of damages not included in the pretrial order are waived even if they appeared in the complaint and, conversely, the inclusion of a claim in the pretrial order is deemed to amend any previous pleadings which did not include that claim”); Syrie v. Knoll Int’l, 748 F. 2d 304,308 (CA5 1984) (“[incorporation of a [new] claim into the pre-trial order... amends the previous pleadings to state [the new] claim”). In these circumstances, we look to the allegations as amended — here, the statement of claims in the final pretrial order — to determine original-source status.
The Government objects that this approach risks driving a wedge between the Government and relators. It worries that future relators might decline to “acquiesc[e]” in the Government’s tactical decision to narrow the claims in a case if that would eliminate jurisdiction with respect to the relator. Brief for United States 44. Even if this policy concern were valid, it would not induce us to determine jurisdiction on the basis of whether the relator is an original source of information underlying allegations that he no longer makes.
IV
Judged according to the principles set forth above, Stone’s knowledge falls short. The only false claims ultimately found by the jury (and hence the only ones to which our jurisdictional inquiry is pertinent to the outcome) involved false statements with respect to environmental, safety, and health compliance over a U/2-year period between April 1, 1987, and September 30, 1988. As described by Stone and the Government in the final pretrial order, the only pertinent problem with respect to this period of time for which Stone claimed to have direct and independent knowledge was insolid pondcrete. Because Stone was no longer employed by Rockwell at the time, he did not know that the pondcrete was insolid; he did not know that pondcrete storage was even subject to RCRA; he did not know that Rockwell would fail to remedy the defect; he did not know that the insolid pondcrete leaked while being stored on-site; and, of course, he did not know that Rockwell made false statements to the Government regarding pondcrete storage.
Stone’s prediction that the pondcrete would be insolid because of a flaw in the piping system does not qualify as “direct and independent knowledge” of the pondcrete defect. Of course a qui tam relator’s misunderstanding of why a concealed defect occurred would normally be immaterial as long as he knew the defect actually existed. But here Stone did not know that the pondcrete failed; he predicted it. Even if a prediction can qualify as direct and independent knowledge in some cases (a point we need not address), it assuredly does not do so when its premise of cause and effect is wrong. Stone’s prediction was a failed prediction, disproved by Stone’s own allegations. As Stone acknowledged, Rockwell was able to produce “concrete hard” pondcrete using the machinery Stone said was defective. According to respondents’ allegations in the final pretrial order, the insolidity problem was caused by a new foreman’s reduction of the cement-to-sludge ratio in the winter of 1986, long after Stone had left Rocky Flats.
Stone counters that his original-source status with respect to his spray-irrigation claim (which related to a time period different from that for his pondcrete claim, App. 492) provided jurisdiction with respect to all of his claims. We disagree. Section 3730(e)(4) does not permit jurisdiction in gross just because a relator is an original source with respect to some claim. We, along with every court to have addressed the question, conclude that § 3730(e)(4) does not permit such claim smuggling. See United States ex rel. Merena v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 205 F. 3d 97, 102 (CA3 2000); Hays v. Hoffman, 325 F. 3d 982, 990 (CA8 2003); Wang ex rel. United States v. FMC Corp., 975 F. 2d 1412, 1415-1416, 1420 (CA9 1992). As then-judge Alito explained, “[t]he plaintiff’s decision to join all of his or her claims in a single lawsuit should not rescue claims that would have been doomed by section (e)(4) if they had been asserted in a separate action. And likewise, this joinder should not result in the dismissal of claims that would have otherwise survived.” SmithKline Beecham, supra, at 102.
Because Stone did not have direct and independent knowledge of the information upon which his allegations were based, we need not decide whether Stone met the second requirement of original-source status, that he have voluntarily provided the information to the Government before filing his action.
V
Respondents contend that even if Stone failed the original-source test as to his pondcrete allegations, the Government’s intervention in his case provided an independent basis of jurisdiction. Section 3730(e)(4)(A) permits jurisdiction over an action based on publicly disclosed allegations or transactions if the action is “brought by the Attorney General.” Respondents say that any inquiry into Stone’s original-source status with respect to amendments to the complaint was unnecessary because the Government had intervened, making this an “action brought by the Attorney General.” Even assuming that Stone was an original source of allegations in his initial complaint, we reject respondents’ “intervention” argument.
The False Claims Act contemplates two types of actions. First, under § 3730(a), “[i]f the Attorney General finds that a person has violated or is violating section 3729, the Attorney General may bring a civil action under this section against the person.” Second, under §3730(b), “[a] person may bring an action for a violation of section 3729 for the person and for the United States Government.” When a private person brings an action under § 3730(b), the Government may elect to “proceed with the action,” §3730(b)(4)(A), or it may “deelin[e] to take over the action, in which case the person bringing the action shall have the right to conduct the action,” § 3730(b)(4)(B). The statute thus draws a sharp distinction between actions brought by the Attorney General under § 3730(a) and actions brought by a private person under § 3730(b). An action brought by a private person does not become one brought by the Government just because the Government intervenes and elects to “proceed with the action.” Section 3730 elsewhere refers to the Government’s “proeeed[ing] with an action brought by a person under subsection (b)” — which makes crystal clear the distinction between actions brought by the Government and actions brought by a relator where the Government intervenes but does not oust the relator. § 3730(d).
Does this conclusion cast into doubt the courts’ jurisdiction with respect to the Government as well? After all, § 3730(e)(4)(A) bars jurisdiction over any action brought under § 3730, as this one was, unless the action is brought (1) by the Attorney General or (2) by an original source; and we have concluded that this is brought by neither. Not even petitioners have suggested the bizarre result that the Government’s judgment must be set aside. It is readily enough avoided, as common sense suggests it must be, by holding that an action originally brought by a private person, which the Attorney General has joined, becomes an action brought by the Attorney General once the private person has been determined to lack the jurisdictional prerequisites for suit. The outcome would be similar to that frequently produced in diversity-jurisdiction cases, where the “courts of appeals... have the authority to cure a jurisdictional defect by dismissing a dispensable nondiverse party.” Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, L. P., 541 U. S. 567, 573 (2004) (citing Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U. S. 826, 837 (1989)); see United States Steel Corp. v. EPA, 614 F. 2d 843, 845 (CA3 1979) (“[T]here are instances when an intervenor’s claim does not rise and fall with the claim of the original party”); 7C C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1920, p. 491 (2d ed. 1986) (“[A]n intervenor can proceed to decision after a dismissal of the original action... if there are independent grounds for jurisdiction of the intervenor’s claim”). What is cured here, by the jurisdictional ruling regarding Stone’s claim, is the characterization of the action as one brought by an original source. The elimination of Stone leaves in place an action pursued only by the Attorney General, that can reasonably be regarded as being “brought” by him for purposes of § 3730(e)(4)(A).
* * *
We hold that the District Court
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Petitioner sued respondent, his employer, to recover compensation lost as a result of the employee’s being required to serve as a juror. An Alabama statute provides that an employee excused for jury duty “shall be entitled to his usual compensation received from such employment less the fee or compensation he received for serving” as a juror. Ala. Code of 1940, Tit. 30, §7(1) (Supp. 1971). It appears that petitioner served on a jury, received pay for the jury duty and submitted a bill of $63 to respondent, the difference between his regular wages and his jury pay. Respondent refused to pay; the trial court rendered a judgment for petitioner; but the Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama held the state Act unconstitutional. 49 Ala. App. 45, 268 So. 2d 829. The Supreme Court of Alabama denied certiorari to review that judgment. 289 Ala. 743, 268 So. 2d 834. The case is here on petition for a writ of certiorari which we grant.
The Court of Civil Appeals held that the Act deprives the employer of property in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, its main reliance being on Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U. S. 1. Coppage declared unconstitutional as violative of due process a state statute which made it a misdemeanor for an employer to require an employee to agree not to join or remain a member of a union during his employment. That was when substantive due process was in its heyday. We cited Coppage along with other decisions of like tenor in Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. v. Missouri, 342 U. S. 421, where we sustained a state statute which made it a misdemeanor for an employer to deduct wages of an employee for four hours when the employee absents himself from his job in order to vote. We held that the requirement placed on the employer to pay wages for this brief period when the employee is voting stood constitutional muster.
We said:
“Most regulations of business necessarily impose financial burdens on the enterprise for which no compensation is paid. Those are part of the costs of our civilization. Extreme cases are conjured up where an employer is required to pay wages for a period that has no relation to the legitimate end. Those cases can await decision as and when they arise. The present law has no such infirmity. It is designed to eliminate any penalty for exercising the right of suffrage and to remove a practical obstacle to getting out the vote. The public welfare is a broad and inclusive concept. The moral, social, economic, and physical well-being of the community is one part of it; the political well-being, another. The police power which is adequate to fix the financial burden for one is adequate for the other. The judgment of the legislature that time out for voting should cost the employee nothing may be a debatable one. It is indeed conceded by the opposition to be such. But if our recent cases mean anything, they leave debatable issues as respects business, economic, and social affairs to legislative decision. We could strike down this law only if we returned to the philosophy of the Lochner,[ ] Coppage, and Adkins [] cases.” Id., at 424-425.
The Alabama statute stands on no less sturdy a footing.
Reversed.
Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45.
Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, 261 U. S. 525.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | D | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari in this case to decide whether a defendant accused of aiding and abetting in the commission of a federal offense may be convicted after the named principal has been acquitted of that offense.
I
In June 1977, petitioner Standefer was indicted on four counts of making gifts to a public official, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 201 (f), and on five counts of aiding and abetting a revenue official in accepting compensation in addition to that authorized by law, in violation of 26 U. S. C. § 7214 (a) (2) and 18 U. S. C. § 2. The indictment charged that petitioner, as head of Gulf Oil Corp.’s tax department, had authorized payments for five vacation trips to Cyril Nieder-berger, who then was the Internal Revenue Service agent in charge of the audits of Gulf’s federal income tax returns. Specifically, the indictment alleged that Gulf, on petitioner’s authorization, had paid for vacations for Niederberger in Pompano Beach (July 1971), Miami (January 1973), Ab-secon (August-September 1973), Pebble Beach (April 1974), and Las Vegas (June 1974). The four counts under 18 U. S. C. § 201 (f) related to the Miami, Absecon, Pebble Beach, and Las Vegas vacations; the five counts under 26 U. S. C. § 7214 (a)(2) and 18 U. S. C. § 2 were one for each vacation.
Prior to the filing of this indictment, Niederberger was separately charged in a 10-count indictment — two counts for each of the five vacations — with violating 18 U. S. C. § 201 (g) and 26 U. S. C. §7214 (a)(2). In February 1977, Nieder-berger was tried on these charges. He was convicted on four counts of violating § 201 (g) in connection with the vacations in Miami, Absecon, Pebble Beach, and Las Vegas and of two counts of violating § 7214 (a) (2) for the Pebble Beach and Las Vegas trips. He was acquitted on the § 201 (g) count involving the Pompano Beach trip and on the three counts under § 7214 (a)(2) charging him with accepting payments from Gulf for trips to Pompano Beach, Miami, and Absecon.
In July 1977, following Niederberger’s trial and before the trial in his own case commenced, petitioner moved to dismiss the counts under § 7214 (a) (2) and 18 U. S. C. § 2 which charged him with" aiding and abetting Niederberger in connection with the Pompano Beach, Miami, and Absecon vacations. Petitioner argued that because Niederberger, the only named principal, had been acquitted of accepting unlawful compensation as to those vacations, he could not be convicted of aiding and abetting in the commission of those offenses. The District Court denied the motion.
Petitioner’s case then proceeded to trial on all nine counts. At trial, petitioner admitted authorizing payment for all five vacation trips, but testified that the trips were purely social and not designed to influence Niederberger in the performance of his official duties. The jury returned guilty verdicts on all nine counts. Petitioner was sentenced to concurrent terms of six months’ imprisonment followed by two years’ probation; he was fined a total of $18,000 — $2,000 on each count.
Petitioner appealed his convictions to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit claiming, inter alia, that he could not be convicted of aiding and abetting a principal, Niederberger, when that principal had been acquitted of the charged offense. By a divided vote, the Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, rejected that contention. 610 F. 2d 1076 (1979). It concluded that “the outcome of Niederberger’s prosecution has no effect on [petitioner’s] conviction.” Id., at 1078.
Because the question presented is one of importance to the administration of criminal justice on which the Courts of Appeals are in conflict, we granted certiorari. 444 U. S. 1011. We affirm.
II
Petitioner makes two main arguments: first, that Congress in enacting 18 U. S. C. § 2 did not intend to authorize prosecution of an aider and abettor after the principal has been acquitted of the offense charged; second, that, even if § 2 permits such a prosecution, the Government should be barred from relitigating the issue of whether Niederberger accepted unlawful compensation in connection with the Pompano Beach, Miami, and Absecon vacations. The first contention relies largely on the common law as it prevailed before the enactment of 18 U. S. C. § 2. The second rests on the contemporary doctrine of nonmutual collateral estoppel.
A
At common law, the subject of principals and accessories was riddled with “intricate” distinctions. 2 J. Stephen, A History of the Criminal Law of England 231 (1883). In felony cases, parties to a crime were divided into four distinct categories: (1) principals in the first degree who actually perpetrated the offense; (2) principals in the second degree who were actually or constructively present at the scene of the crime and aided or abetted its commission; (3) accessories before the fact who aided or abetted the crime, but were not present at its commission; and (4) accessories after the fact who rendered assistance after the crime was complete. See W. LaFave & A. Scott, Criminal Law § 63 (1972); 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *33; Perkins, Parties to Crime, 89 U. Pa. L. Rev. 581 (1941). By contrast, misdemeanor cases “d[id] not admit of accessaries either before or after the fact,” United States v. Hartwell, 26 F. Cas. 196, 199 (No. 15,318) (CC Mass. 1869); instead, all parties to a misdemeanor, whatever their roles, were principals. United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U. S. 277, 281 (1943); 1 C. Toreia, Wharton’s Criminal Law § 33 (14th ed. 1978).
Because at early common law all parties to a felony received the death penalty, certain procedural rules developed tending to shield accessories from punishment. See LaFave & Scott, supra, at 499. Among them was one of special relevance to this case: the rule that an accessory could not be convicted without the prior conviction of the principal offender. See 1 M. Hale, Pleas of the Crown *623-*624. Under this rule, the principal’s flight, death, or acquittal barred prosecution of the accessory. And if the principal were pardoned or his conviction reversed on appeal, the accessory’s conviction could not stand. In every way, “an accessory follow[ed], like a shadow, his principal.” 1 J. Bishop, Criminal Law § 666 (8th ed. 1892).
This procedural bar applied only to the prosecution of accessories in felony cases. In misdemeanor cases, where all participants were deemed principals, a prior acquittal of the actual perpetrator did not prevent the subsequent conviction of a person who rendered assistance. Queen v. Humphreys and Turner, [1965] 3 All E. R. 689; Queen v. Burton, 13 Cox C. C. 71, 75 (Crim. App. 1875). And in felony cases a principal in the second degree could be convicted notwithstanding the prior acquittal of the first-degree principal. King v. Taylor and Shaw, 168 Eng. Rep. 283 (1785); Queen v. Wallis, 1 Salk. 334, 91 Eng. Rep. 294 (K. B. 1703); Brown v. State, 28 Ga. 199 (1859); State v. Whitt, 113 N. C. 716, 18 S. E. 715 (1893). Not surprisingly, considerable effort was expended in defining the categories — in determining, for instance, when a person was “constructively present” so as to be a second-degree principal. 4 Blackstone, supra, at *34. In the process, justice all too frequently was defeated.
To overcome these judge-made rules, statutes were enacted in England and in the United States. In 1848 the Parliament enacted a statute providing that an accessory before the fact could be “indicted, tried, convicted, and punished in all respects like the Principal.” 11 & 12 Vic. ch. 46, § 1 (emphasis added). As interpreted, the statute permitted an accessory to be convicted “although the principal be acquitted.” Queen v. Hughes, Bell 242, 248, 169 Eng. Rep. 1245, 1248 (1860). Several state legislatures followed suit. In 1899, Congress joined this growing reform movement with the enactment of a general penal code for Alaska which abrogated the common-law distinctions and provided that “all persons concerned in the commission of a crime, whether it be felony or misdemeanor, and whether they directly commit the act constituting the crime or aid and abet in its commission, though not present, are principals, and to be tried and punished as such.” Act of Mar. 3, 1899, § 186, 30 Stat. 1282. In 1901, Congress enacted a similar provision for the District of Columbia.
The enactment of 18 U. S. C. § 2 in 1909 was part and parcel of this same reform movement. The language of the statute, as enacted, unmistakably demonstrates the point:
“Whoever directly commits any act constituting an offense defined in any law of the United States, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, or procures its commission, is a principal.” Act of Mar. 4, 1909, § 332, 35 Stat. 1152 (emphasis added).
The statute “abolishe[d] the distinction between principals and accessories and [made] them all principals.” Hammer v. United States, 271 U. S. 620, 628 (1926). Read against its common-law background, the provision evinces a clear intent to permit the conviction of accessories to federal criminal offenses despite the prior acquittal of the actual perpetrator of the offense. It gives general effect to what had always been the rule for second-degree principals and for all misdemeanants.
The legislative history of § 2 confirms this understanding. The provision was recommended by the Commission to Revise and Codify the Criminal and Penal Laws of the United States as “[i]n accordance with the policy of recent legislation” by which “those whose relations to a crime would be that of accessories before the fact according to the common law are made principals.” 1 Final Report of the Commission to Revise and Codify the Laws of the United States 118-119 (1906). The Commission’s recommendation was adopted without change. The House and Senate Committee Reports, in identical language, stated its intended effect:
“The committee has deemed it wise to make those who are accessories before the fact at common law principal offenders, thereby permitting their indictment and conviction for a substantive offense.
“At common law an accessory can not be tried without his consent before the conviction or outlawry of the principal except where the principal and accessory are tried together; if the principal could not be found or if he had been indicted and refused to plead, had been pardoned or died before conviction, the accessory could not be tried at all. This change of the existing law renders these obstacles to justice impossible.” S. Rep. No. 10, 60th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 1, p. 13 (1908); H. R. Rep. No. 2, 60th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 1, p. 13 (1908).
And on the floor of the House of Representatives, Representative Moon, the Chairman of the Joint Select Committee, put the point simply: “We... have abolished the existing arbitrary distinction between felonies and misdemeanors.” 42 Cong. Rec. 585 (1908).
This history plainly rebuts petitioner’s contention that § 2 was not intended to authorize conviction of an aider and abettor after the principal had been acquitted of the offense charged. With the enactment of that section, all partici-. pants in conduct violating a federal criminal statute are “principals.” As such, they are punishable for their criminal conduct; the fate of other participants is irrelevant.
B
The doctrine of nonmutual collateral estoppel was unknown to the common law and to the Congress when it enacted § 2 in 1909. It emerged in a civil case in 1942, Bernhard v. Bank of America Nat. Trust & Savings Assn., 19 Cal. 2d 807, 122 P. 2d 892. This Court first applied the doctrine in Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation, 402 U. S. 313 (1971). There, we held that a determination of patent invalidity in a prior infringement action was entitled to preclusive effect against the patentee in subsequent litigation against a different defendant. Just this past Term we again applied the doctrine — this time “offensively” — to hold that a defendant who had had a “full and fair” opportunity to litigate issues of fact in a civil proceeding initiated by the Securities and Exchange Commission could be estopped from relitigating those issues in a subsequent action brought by a private plaintiff. Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U. S. 322 (1979). In both cases, application of nonmutual estoppel promoted judicial economy and conserved private resources without unfairness to the litigant against whom estoppel was invoked.
Here, petitioner urges us to apply nonmutual estoppel against the Government; specifically he argues that the Government should be barred from relitigating Niederberger’s guilt under § 7214 (a) (2) in connection with the vacation trips to Pompano Beach, Miami, and Absecon. That issue, he notes, was an element of his offense which was determined adversely to the Government at Niederberger’s trial.
This, however, is a criminal case, presenting considerations different from those in Blonder-Tongue or Parklane Hosiery. First, in a criminal case, the Government is often without the kind of “full and fair opportunity to litigate” that is a prerequisite of estoppel. Several aspects of our criminal law make this so: the prosecution’s discovery rights in criminal cases are limited, both by rules of court and constitutional privileges; it is prohibited from being granted a directed verdict or from obtaining a judgment notwithstanding the verdict no matter how clear the evidence in support of guilt, cf. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 50; it cannot secure a new trial on the ground that an acquittal was plainly contrary to the weight of the evidence, cf. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 59; and it cannot secure appellate review where a defendant has been acquitted. See United States v. Ball, 163 U. S. 662, 671 (1896).
The absence of these remedial procedures in criminal cases permits juries to acquit out of compassion or compromise or because of “ 'their assumption of a power which they had no right to exercise, but to which they were disposed through lenity.’ ” Dunn v. United States, 284 U. S. 390, 393 (1932), quoting Steckler v. United States, 7 F. 2d 59, 60 (CA2 1925). See generally H. Kalven & H. Zeisel, The American Jury 193-347 (ed. 1976). It is of course true that verdicts induced by passion and prejudice are not unknown in civil suits. But in civil cases, post-trial motions and appellate review provide an aggrieved litigant a remedy; in a criminal case the Government has no similar avenue to correct errors. Under contemporary principles of collateral estoppel, this factor strongly militates against giving an acquittal preclu-sive effect. See Bestatement (Second) of Judgments § 68.1 (Tent. Draft No. 3, 1976) (denying preclusive effect to an unreviewable judgment).
The application of nonmutual estoppel in criminal cases is also complicated by the existence of rules of evidence and exclusion unique to our criminal law. It is frequently true in criminal cases that evidence inadmissible against one defendant is admissible against another. The exclusionary rule, for example, may bar the Government from introducing evidence against one defendant because that evidence was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights. And the suppression of that evidence may result in an acquittal. The same evidence, however, may be admissible against other parties to the crime “whose rights were [not] violated.” Alderman v. United States, 394 U. S. 165, 171-172 (1969). Accord, Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U. S. 128, 134 (1978). In such circumstances, where evidentiary rules prevent the Government from presenting all its proof in the first case, application of nonmutual estoppel would be plainly unwarranted.
It is argued that this concern could be met on a case-by-case basis by conducting a pretrial hearing to determine whether any such evidentiary ruling had deprived the Government of an opportunity to present its case fully the first time around. That process, however, could prove protracted and burdensome. Under such a scheme, the Government presumably would be entitled to seek review of any adverse evidentiary ruling rendered in the first proceeding and of any aspect of the jury charge in that case that worked to its detriment. Nothing short of that would insure that its opportunity to litigate had been “full and fair.” If so, the “pretrial hearing” would fast become a substitute for appellate review, and the very purpose of litigation economy that estoppel is designed to promote would be frustrated.
Finally, this case • involves an ingredient not present in either Blonder-T ongue or Parklane Hosiery, the important federal interest in the enforcement of the criminal law. Blonder-T ongue and Parklane Hosiery were disputes over private rights between private litigants. In such, cases, no significant harm flows from enforcing a rule that affords a litigant only one full and fair opportunity to litigate an issue, and there is no sound reason for burdening the courts with repetitive litigation.
That is not so here. The Court of Appeals opinion put the point well:
“[T]he purpose of a criminal court is not to provide a forum for the ascertainment of private rights. Rather it is to vindicate the public interest in the enforcement of the criminal law while at the same time safeguarding the rights of the individual defendant. The public interest in the accuracy and justice of criminal results is greater than the concern for judicial economy professed in civil cases and we are thus inclined to reject, at least as a general matter, a rule that would spread the effect of an erroneous acquittal to all those who participated in a particular criminal transaction. To plead crowded dockets as an excuse for not trying criminal defendants is in our view neither in the best interests of the courts, nor the public.” 610 F. 2d, at 1093.
In short, this criminal case involves “competing policy considerations” that outweigh the economy concerns that under-gird the estoppel doctrine. See Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 68.1 (e) and comments thereto (Tent. Draft No. 3, 1976); cf. Commissioner v. Sunnen, 333 U. S. 591 (1948).
Ill
In denying preclusive effect to Niederberger’s acquittal, we do not deviate from the sound teaching that “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.” Offutt v. United States, 348 U. S. 11, 14 (1954). This case does no more than manifest the simple, if discomforting, reality that “different juries may reach different results under any criminal statute. That is one of the consequences we accept under our jury system.” Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 492, n. 30 (1967). While symmetry of results may be intellectually satisfying, it is not required. See Hamling v. United States, 418 U. S. 87, 101 (1974).
Here, petitioner received a fair trial at which the Government bore the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that Niederberger violated 26 U. S. C. § 7214 (a) (2) and that petitioner aided and abetted him in that venture. He was entitled to no less — and to no more.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Title 18 U. S. C. § 201 (f) provides, in relevant part, as follows:
“Whoever, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, directly or indirectly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any public official... for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such public official... [is guilty of an offense]
Title 26 U. S. C. § 7214 (a) (2) punishes:
“Any officer or employee of the United States acting in connection with any revenue law of the United States... who knowingly demands other or greater sums than are authorized by law, or receives any fee, compensation, or reward, except as by law prescribed, for the performance of any duty.”
Title 18 U. S. C. § 2 provides in relevant part:
“Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.”
The indictment also named Gulf Oil Corp. and Joseph Fitzgerald, a manager in Gulf’s tax department, as defendants. Gulf pleaded guilty and Fitzgerald nolo contendere to all nine counts.
It appears that the statute of limitations had run on any violation of 18 U. S. C. § 201 (f) in connection with the Pompano Beach vacation.
Title 18 U. S. C. §201 (g) punishes:
“Whoever, being a public official..., otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, directly or indirectly asks, demands, exacts, solicits, seeks, accepts, receives, or agrees to receive anything of value for himself for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by him.”
Niederberger was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment followed by a five-year period of probation, and he was fined $5,000. His convictions were affirmed by the Court of Appeals. United States v. Niederberger, 580 F. 2d 63 (CA3 1978).
The jury was instructed that in order to render a guilty verdict on the § 7214 (a) counts it must determine (1) that Niederberger knowingly “received a fee, compensation or reward except as prescribed by law... for the performance... of any duty” and (2) that petitioner “willfully aided and abetted [him].” App. 53a-54a, 57a.
The Courts of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Ninth Circuit, and the District of Columbia Circuit have reached the same conclusion as the Third Circuit. See United States v. Musgrave, 483 F. 2d 327,331-332 (CA5 1973); United States v. Azadian, 436 F. 2d 81 (CA9 1971); Perkins v. United States, 315 F. 2d 120, 122 (CA9 1963); Gray v. United States, 104 U. S. App. D. C. 153, 260 F. 2d 483 (1958). The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has taken the contrary view that “where the only potential principal has been acquitted, no crime has been established and the conviction of an aider and abettor cannot be sustained.” United States v. Shuford, 454 F. 2d 772, 779 (1971). Accord, United States v. Prince, 430 F. 2d 1324 (CA4 1970). See also n. 11, infra.
Petitioner also challenges the instructions to the jury on criminal intent. We agree with the Court of Appeals that the instructions were correct.
By 1909, when § 2 was enacted, 13 States had enacted legislation providing that the acquittal of the actual perpetrator was not a bar to the conviction of one charged with giving him aid. See Cal. Stat., ch. 99, §§ 11, 12 (1850) (see People v. Bearss, 10 Cal. 68, 70 (1858)); Del. Rev. Stat., ch. 133, § 1 (1893); Iowa Rev. Code Ann. §4314 (1885) (see State v. Lee, 91 Iowa 499, 501-502, 60 N. W. 119, 120 (1894)); Kan. Gen. Stat. § 5180 (1889) (see State v. Bogue, 52 Kan. 79, 86-87, 34 P. 410, 412 (1893)); Ky. Stat. § 1128 (1903) (see Commonwealth v. Hicks, 118 Ky. 637, 642, 82 S. W. 265, 266 (1904)); Miss. Code § 1026 (1906) (see Fleming v. State, 142 Miss. 872, 880-881, 108 So. 143, 144-145 (1926)); Mont. Penal Code Ann. § 1854 (1895); N. Y. Penal Code § 29 (1895) (see People v. Kief, 126 N. Y. 661, 663-664, 27 N. E. 556, 557 (1891)); N. D. Rev. Code Crim. Proc. § 8060 (1895); Okla. Stat. § 5523 (1890) ; S. D. Stat. Ann. § 8520 (1899); Utah Comp. Laws § 4752 (1907); Wash. Code of Proc. § 1189 (1891) (see State v. Gifford, 19 Wash. 464, 467-468, 53 P. 709, 710 (1898)).
Since then, at least 21 other States have enacted legislation with that effect. See 1977 Ala. Act No. 607, § 425; Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-304-1 (1978); Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-304 (1977); Colo. Rev. Stat. §18-1-605 (1973) (see Roberts v. People, 103 Colo. 250, 87 P. 2d 251 (1938)); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-9 (1979); Fla. Stat. §777.011 (1979) (see Butts v. State, 286 So. 2d 28 (1073)); Ga. Code § 26-802 (1978); Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 38, § 5-3 (1979); Ind. Code § 35-41-2-4 (Supp. 1978); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 1424 (West 1974) (see State v. McAllister, 366 So. 2d 1340 (1978)); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., Tit. 17-A, §57 (1979); Mich. Comp. Laws § 767.39 (1970) (People v. Smith, 271 Mich. 553, 260 N. W. 911 (1935)); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 562.046 (1978); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-206 (Supp. 1978) (State v. Rice, 188 Neb. 728, 199 N. W. 2d 480 (1972)); N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 626.8 (1974); N. J. Stat. Ann. §2C: 2-6 (West Spec. Pamph. 1979); N. M. Stat. Ann. § 30-1-13 (1978); Pa. Cons. Stat., Tit. 18, § 306 (Supp. 1979); S. C. Code § 16-1-50 (1976) (State v. Massey, 229 S. E. 2d 332 (1976)); Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 7.03 (Vernon 1974); Wis. Stat. §939.05 (1977).
Eleven other States have enacted statutes that modify the common-law rule; these statutes have not been authoritatively construed on whether an accessory can be prosecuted after his principal’s acquittal. See Haw. Rev. Stat. § 702-225 (1976); Idaho Code § 19-1431 (1979); Mass. Gen. Laws Ann., ch. 274, § 3 (West 1970); Minn. Stat. § 609.05 (1978); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 195.040 (1979); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2923.03 (1979); Ore. Rev. Stat. § 161.160 (1979); Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 13, § 3 (1974); Va. Code § 18.2-21 (1975); W. Va. Code § 61-11-7 (1977); Wyo. Stat. § 6-1-114 (1977).
Only four States — Maryland, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Tennessee — clearly retain the common-law bar. See State v. Ward, 284 Md. 189, 396 A. 2d 1041 (1978); State v. Jones, 101 N. C. 719, 8 S. E. 147 (1888) (interpreting N. C. Gen. Stat. § 14-5 (1969)); R. I. Gen. Laws § 11-1-3 (1970); Pierce v. State, 130 Tenn. 24, 168 S. W. 851 (1914).
The Model Penal Code provides that an accomplice may be convicted “though the person claimed to have committed the offense... has been acquitted.” § 2.06(7) (Tent. Draft No. 3, 1955), and see comments 38-39 (Tent. Draft No. 1, 1953).
The provision is still in effect; it provides that all persons “aiding or abetting the principal offender, shall be charged as principals and not as accessories, the intent of this section being that as to all accessories before the fact the law heretofore applicable in cases of misdemeanor only shall apply to all crimes....” Act of Mar. 3, 1901, § 908, 31 Stat. 1337; D. C. Code § 22-105 (1973) (emphasis added).
In 1951, the words “is a principal” were altered to read “is punishable as a principal.” That change was designed to eliminate all doubt that in the case of offenses whose prohibition is directed at members of specified classes (e. g., federal employees) a person who is not himself a member of that class may nonetheless be punished as a principal if he induces a person in that class to violate the prohibition. See S. Rep. No. 1020, 82d Cong., 1st Sess., 7-8 (1951). The change was fully consistent with congressional intent to treat accessories before the fact as principals and to abolish the common-law procedural bar. Indeed, by the time of the 1951 re-enactment, the Circuit Courts that had addressed the question had concluded that § 2 authorizes conviction of an aider and abettor notwithstanding the prior acquittal of the perpetrator of the offense. See United States v. Klass, 166 F. 2d 373, 380 (CA3 1948); Von Patzoll v. United States, 163 F. 2d 216, 219 (CA10 1947); Kelly v. United States, 258 F. 392, 402 (CA6 1919); Rooney v. United States, 203 F. 928, 931-932 (CA9 1913). Congress manifested no intent to disturb this interpretation. See Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U. S. 575, 580 (1978).
Petitioner emphasizes the fact that the Committee Report fails to mention the common-law rule that the prior acquittal of a principal barred conviction of an accessory, and argues accordingly that Congress did not view that rule as an “obstacle to justice.” The Court of Appeals correctly rejected this argument, being unwilling to “apply the canon of statutory interpretation... expressio unius, exchisio alterius... to the language employed in a committee report.” 610 F. 2d 1076, 1084 (CA3 1979) (emphasis added). We agree. Petitioner’s argument would permit an omission in the legislative history to nullify the plain meaning of a statute. The language of § 2 abolishes the common-law categories and treats all parties as principals. It is not necessary for Congress in its committee reports to identify all of the “weeds” which are being excised from the garden.
It bears mention that even prior to 1909 petitioner would not have prevailed in his attempt to bar prosecution on the § 7214 (a) (2) counts. As the Government notes, the version of 26 U. S. C. § 7214 then in effect defined the offense to be a misdemeanor. See Rev. Stat. §3169 (1878). Hence, the prior acquittal of his principal would not have barred petitioner’s prosecution. And because petitioner accompanied Niederberger on four of five trips and therefore was “present” at the scene of the crime, see Tr. 1018-1020, 1024-1027, 1034-1036, 1096, he could have been convicted at common law for those crimes even if the offense had been designated a felony.
Nothing in Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 U. S. 262 (1963), relied on by petitioner, is to the contrary. There, petitioner had been convicted of aiding and abetting others to violate a city trespass ordinance which subsequently was declared constitutionally invalid. See Gober v. Birmingham, 373 U. S. 374 (1963). Shuttlesworth’s case merely applied the rule that “there can be no conviction for aiding and abetting someone to do an innocent act.” 373 U. S., at 265. Here, by contrast, the Government proved in petitioner’s case that Niederberger
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Thomas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In these consolidated cases, two individuals sued their respective health maintenance organizations (HMOs) for alleged failures to exercise ordinary care in the handling of coverage decisions, in violation of a duty imposed by the Texas Health Care Liability Act (THCLA), Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§88.001-88.003 (West 2004 Supp. Pamphlet). We granted certiorari to decide whether the individuals’ causes of action are completely pre-empted by the “interlocking, interrelated, and interdependent remedial scheme,” Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Russell, 473 U. S. 134, 146 (1985), found at § 502(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 88 Stat. 891, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 1132(a) et seq. 540 U. S. 981 (2003). We hold that the causes of action are completely pre-empted and hence removable from state to federal court. The Court of Appeals, having reached a contrary conclusion, is reversed.
I
A
Respondent Juan Davila is a participant, and respondent Ruby Calad is a beneficiary, in ERISA-regulated employee benefit plans. Their respective plan sponsors had entered into agreements with petitioners, Aetna Health Inc. and CIGNA Healthcare of Texas, Inc., to administer the plans. Under Davila’s plan, for instance, Aetna reviews requests for coverage and pays providers, such as doctors, hospitals, and nursing homes, which perform covered services for members; under Calad’s plan sponsor’s agreement, CIGNA is responsible for plan benefits and coverage decisions.
Respondents both suffered injuries allegedly arising from Aetna’s and CIGNA’s decisions not to provide coverage for certain treatment and services recommended by respondents’ treating physicians. Davila’s treating physician prescribed Vioxx to remedy Davila’s arthritis pain, but Aetna refused to pay for it. Davila did not appeal or contest this decision, nor did he purchase Vioxx with his own resources and seek reimbursement. Instead, Davila began taking Na-prosyn, from which he allegedly suffered a severe reaction that required extensive treatment and hospitalization. Calad underwent surgery, and although her treating physician recommended an extended hospital stay, a CIGNA discharge nurse determined that Calad did not meet the plan’s criteria for a continued hospital stay. CIGNA consequently denied coverage for the extended hospital stay. Calad experienced postsurgery complications forcing her to return to the hospital. She alleges that these complications would not have occurred had CIGNA approved coverage for a longer hospital stay.
Respondents brought separate suits in Texas state court against petitioners. Invoking THCLA § 88.002(a), respondents argued that petitioners’ refusal to cover the requested services violated their “duty to exercise ordinary care when making health care treatment decisions,” and that these refusals “proximately caused” their injuries. Ibid. Petitioners removed the cases to Federal District Courts, arguing that respondents’ causes of action fit within the scope of, and were therefore completely pre-empted by, ERISA § 502(a). The respective District Courts agreed, and declined to remand the cases to state court. Because respondents refused to amend their complaints to bring explicit ERISA claims, the District Courts dismissed the complaints with prejudice.
B
Both Davila and Calad appealed the refusals to remand to state court. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit consolidated their cases with several others raising similar issues. The Court of Appeals recognized that state causes of action that “duplicate] or fal[l] within the scope of an ERISA § 502(a) remedy” are completely preempted and hence removable to federal court. Roark v. Humana, Inc., 307 F. 3d 298, 305 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). After examining the causes of action available under § 502(a), the Court of Appeals determined that respondents’ claims could possibly fall under only two: § 502(a)(1)(B), which provides a cause of action for the recovery of wrongfully denied benefits, and § 502(a)(2), which allows suit against a plan fiduciary for breaches of fiduciary duty to the plan.
Analyzing § 502(a)(2) first, the Court of Appeals concluded that, under Pegram v. Herdrich, 530 U. S. 211 (2000), the decisions for which petitioners were being sued were “mixed eligibility and treatment decisions” and hence were not fiduciary in nature. 307 F. 3d, at 307-308. The Court of Appeals next determined that respondents’ claims did not fall within § 502(a)(1)(B)’s scope. It found significant that respondents “assert tort claims,” while § 502(a)(1)(B) “creates a cause of action for breach of contract,” id., at 309, and also that respondents “are not seeking reimbursement for benefits denied them,” but rather request “tort damages” arising from “an external, statutorily imposed duty of ‘ordinary care,’ ” ibid. From Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran, 536 U. S. 355 (2002), the Court of Appeals derived the principle that complete pre-emption is limited to situations in which “States... duplicate the causes of action listed in ERISA § 502(a),” and concluded that “[b]ecause the THCLA does not provide an action for collecting benefits,” it fell outside the scope of § 502(a)(1)(B). 307 F. 3d, at 310-311.
II
A
Under the removal statute, “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant” to federal court. 28 U. S. C. § 1441(a). One category of cases of which district courts have original jurisdiction is “[fjederal question” cases: cases “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” §1331. We face in these cases the issue whether respondents’ causes of action arise under federal law.
Ordinarily, determining whether a particular case arises under federal law turns on the “‘well-pleaded complaint’” rule. Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern Cal., 463 U. S. 1, 9-10 (1983). The Court has explained that
“whether a case is one arising under the Constitution or a law or treaty of the United States, in the sense of the jurisdictional statute[,J... must be determined from what necessarily appears in the plaintiff’s statement of his own claim in the bill or declaration, unaided by anything alleged in' anticipation of avoidance of defenses which it is thought the defendant may interpose.” Taylor v. Anderson, 234 U. S. 74, 75-76 (1914).
In particular, the existence of a federal defense normally does not create statutory “arising under” jurisdiction, Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U. S. 149 (1908), and “a defendant may not [generally] remove a case to federal court unless the plaintiff’s complaint establishes that the case ‘arises under’ federal law,” Franchise Tax Bd., supra, at 10. There is an exception, however, to the well-pleaded complaint rule. “[W]hen a federal statute wholly displaces the state-law cause of action through complete pre-emption,” the state claim can be removed. Beneficial Nat. Bank v. Anderson, 539 U. S. 1, 8 (2003). This is so because “[w]hen the federal statute completely pre-empts the state-law cause of action, a claim which comes within the scope of that cause of action, even if pleaded in terms of state law, is in reality based on federal law.” Ibid. ERISA is one of these statutes.
B
Congress enacted ERISA to “protect... the interests of participants in employee benefit plans and their beneficiaries” by setting out substantive regulatory requirements for employee benefit plans and to “provid[e] for appropriate remedies, sanctions, and ready access to the Federal courts.” 29 U. S. C. § 1001(b). The purpose of ERISA is to provide a uniform regulatory regime over employee benefit plans. To this end, ERISA includes expansive pre-emption provisions, see ERISA § 514,29 U. S. C. § 1144, which are intended to ensure that employee benefit plan regulation would be “exclusively a federal concern.” Alessi v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 451 U. S. 504, 523 (1981).
ERISA’s “comprehensive legislative scheme” includes “an integrated system of procedures for enforcement.” Russell, 473 U. S., at 147 (internal quotation marks omitted). This integrated enforcement mechanism, ERISA § 502(a), 29 U. S. C. § 1132(a), is a distinctive feature of ERISA, and essential to accomplish Congress’ purpose of creating a comprehensive statute for the regulation of employee benefit plans. As the Court said in Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U. S. 41 (1987):
“[T]he detailed provisions of § 502(a) set forth a comprehensive civil enforcement scheme that represents a careful balancing of the need for prompt and fair claims settlement procedures against the public interest in encouraging the formation of employee benefit plans. The policy choices reflected in the inclusion of certain remedies and the exclusion of others under the federal scheme would be completely undermined if ERISA-plan participants and beneficiaries were free to obtain remedies under state law that Congress rejected in ERISA. ‘The six carefully integrated civil enforcement provisions found in § 502(a) of the statute as finally enacted... provide strong evidence that Congress did not intend to authorize other remedies that it simply forgot to incorporate expressly.’” Id., at 54 (quoting Russell, supra, at 146).
Therefore, any state-law cause of action that duplicates, supplements, or supplants the ERISA civil enforcement remedy conflicts with the clear congressional intent to make the ERISA remedy exclusive and is therefore pre-empted. See 481 U. S., at 54-56; see also Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon, 498 U. S. 133, 143-145 (1990).
The pre-emptive force of ERISA § 502(a) is still stronger. In Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U. S. 58, 65-66 (1987), the Court determined that the similarity of the language used in the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (LMRA), and ERISA, combined with the “clear intention” of Congress “to make § 502(a)(1)(B) suits brought by participants or beneficiaries federal questions for the purposes of federal court jurisdiction in like manner as §301 of the LMRA,” established that ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B)’s preemptive force mirrored the pre-emptive force of LMRA §301. Since LMRA §301 converts state causes of action into federal ones for purposes of determining the propriety of removal, see Avco Corp. v. Machinists, 390 U. S. 557 (1968), so too does ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B). Thus, the ERISA civil enforcement mechanism is one of those provisions with such “extraordinary pre-emptive power” that it “converts an ordinary state common law complaint into one stating á federal claim for purposes of the well-pleaded complaint rule.” Metropolitan Life, 481 U. S., at 65-66. Hence, “causes of action within the scope of the civil enforcement provisions of §502(a) [are] removable to federal court.” Id., at 66.
III
A
ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) provides:
“A civil action may be brought — (1) by a participant or beneficiary —... (B) to recover benefits due to him under the terms of his plan, to enforce his rights under the terms of the plan, or to clarify his rights to future benefits under the terms of the plan.” 29 U. S. C. § 1132(a)(1)(B).
This provision is relatively straightforward. If a participant or beneficiary believes that benefits promised to him under the terms of the plan are not provided, he can bring suit seeking provision of those benefits. A participant or beneficiary can also bring suit generically to “enforce his rights” under the plan, or to clarify any of his rights to future benefits. Any dispute over the precise terms of the plan is resolved by a court under a de novo review standard, unless the terms of the plan “giv[e] the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan.” Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U. S. 101, 115 (1989).
It follows that if an individual brings suit complaining of a denial of coverage for medical care, where the individual is entitled to such coverage only because of the terms of an ERISA-regulated employee benefit plan, and where no legal duty (state or federal) independent of ERISA or the plan terms is violated, then the suit falls “within the scope, of” ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B). Metropolitan Life, supra, at 66. In other words, if an individual, at some point in time, could have brought his claim under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B), and where there is no other independent legal duty that is implicated by a defendant’s actions, then the individual’s cause of action is completely pre-empted by ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B).
To determine whether respondents’ causes of action fall “within the scope” of ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B), we must examine respondents’ complaints, the statute on which their claims are based (the THCLA), and the various plan documents. Davila alleges that Aetna provides health coverage under his employer’s health benefits plan. App. H to Pet. for Cert. in No. 02-1845, p. 67a, ¶ 11. Davila also alleges that after his primary care physician prescribed Vioxx, Aetna refused to pay for it. Id., at 67a, ¶ 12. The only action complained of was Aetna’s refusal to approve payment for Davila’s Vioxx prescription. Further, the only relationship Aetna had with Davila was its partial administration of Davila’s employer’s benefit plan. See App. JA-25, JA-31, JA-39 to JA-40, JA-45 to JA-48, JA-108.
Similarly, Calad alleges that she receives, as her husband’s beneficiary under an ERISA-regulated benefit plan, health coverage from CIGNA. Id., at JA-184, ¶ 17. She alleges that she was informed by CIGNA, upon admittance into a hospital for major surgery, that she would be authorized to stay for only one day. Id., at JA-184, ¶ 18. She also alleges that CIGNA, acting through a discharge nurse, refused to authorize more than a single day despite the advice and recommendation of her treating physician. Id., at JA-185, ¶¶20, 21. Calad contests only CIGNA’s decision to refuse coverage for her hospital stay. Id., at JA-.185, ¶ 20. And, as in Davila’s case, the only connection between Calad and CIGNA is CIGNA’s administration of portions of Calad’s ERISA-regulated benefit plan. Id., at JA-219 to JA-221.
It is clear, then, that respondents complain only about denials of coverage promised under the terms of ERISAregulated employee benefit plans. Upon the denial of benefits, respondents could have paid for the treatment themselves and then sought reimbursement through a § 502(a)(1)(B) action, or sought a preliminary injunction, see Pryzbowski v. U. S. Healthcare, Inc., 245 F. 3d 266, 274 (CA3 2001) (giving examples where federal courts have issued such preliminary injunctions).
Respondents contend, however, that the complained-of actions violate legal duties that arise independently of ERISA or the terms of the employee benefit plans at issue in these cases. Both respondents brought suit specifically under the THCLA, alleging that petitioners “controlled, influenced, participated in and made decisions which affected the quality of the diagnosis, care, and treatment provided” in a manner that violated “the duty of ordinary care set forth in §§ 88.001 and 88.002.” App. H to Pet. for Cert. in No. 02-1845, at 69a, ¶ 18; see also App. JA-187, ¶ 28. Respondents contend that this duty of ordinary care is an independent legal duty. They analogize to this Court’s decisions interpreting LMRA § 301, 29 U. S. C. § 185, with particular focus on Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U. S. 386 (1987) (suit for breach of individual employment contract, even if defendant’s action also constituted a breach of an entirely separate collective-bargaining agreement, not pre-empted by LMRA §301). Because this duty of ordinary care arises independently of any duty imposed by ERISA or the plan terms, the argument goes, any civil action to enforce this duty is not within the scope of the ERISA civil enforcement mechanism.
The duties imposed by the THCLA in the context of these cases, however, do not arise independently of ERISA or the plan terms. The THCLA does impose a duty on managed care entities to “exercise ordinary care when making health care treatment decisions,” and makes them liable for damages proximately caused by failures to abide by that duty. § 88.002(a). However, if a managed care entity correctly concluded that, under the terms of the relevant plan, a particular treatment was not covered, the managed care entity’s denial of coverage would not be a proximate cause of any injuries arising from the denial. Rather, the failure of the plan itself to cover the requested treatment would be the proximate cause. More significantly, the THCLA clearly states that “[t]he standards in Subsections (a) and (b) create no obligation on the part of the health insurance carrier, health maintenance organization, or other managed care entity to provide to an insured or enrollee treatment which is not covered by the health care plan of the entity.” § 88.002(d). Hence, a managed care entity could not be subject to liability under the THCLA if it denied coverage for any treatment not covered by the health care plan that it was administering.
Thus, interpretation of the terms of respondents’ benefit plans forms an essential part of their THCLA claim, and THCLA liability would exist here only because of petitioners’ administration of ERISA-regulated benefit plans. Petitioners’ potential liability under the THCLA in these cases, then, derives entirely from the particular rights and obligations established by the benefit plans. So, unlike the state-law claims in Caterpillar, supra, respondents’ THCLA causes of action are not entirely independent of the federally regulated contract itself. Cf. Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U. S. 202, 217 (1985) (state-law tort of bad-faith handling of insurance claim pre-empted by LMRA §301, since the “duties imposed and rights established through the state tort... derive[d] from the rights and obligations established by the contract”); Steelworkers v. Rawson, 495 U. S. 362, 371 (1990) (state-law tort action brought due to alleged negligence in the inspection of a mine was pre-empted, as the duty to inspect the mine arose solely out of the collective-bargaining agreement).
Hence, respondents bring suit only to rectify a wrongful denial of benefits promised under ERISA-regulated plans, and do not attempt to remedy any violation of a legal duty independent of ERISA. We hold that respondents’ state causes of action fall “within the scope of” ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B), Metropolitan Life, 481 U. S., at 66, and are therefore completely pre-empted by ERISA §502 and removable to federal district court.
B
The Court of Appeals came to a contrary conclusion for several reasons, all of them erroneous. First, the Court of Appeals found significant that respondents “assert a tort claim for tort damages” rather than “a contract claim for contract damages,” and that respondents “are not seeking reimbursement for benefits denied them.” 307 F. 3d, at 309. But, distinguishing between pre-empted and non-pre-empted claims based on the particular label affixed to them would “elevate form over substance and allow parties to evade” the pre-emptive scope of ERISA simply “by relabeling their contract claims as claims for tortious breach of contract.” Allis-Chalmers, supra, at 211. Nor can the mere fact that the state cause of action attempts to authorize remedies beyond those authorized by ERISA § 502(a) put the cause of action outside the scope of the ERISA civil enforcement mechanism. In Pilot Life, Metropolitan Life, and Ingersoll-Rand, the plaintiffs all brought state claims that were labeled either tort or tort-like. See Pilot Life, 481 U. S., at 43 (suit for, inter alia, “ ‘Tortious Breach of Contract’ ”); Metropolitan Life, supra, at 61-62 (suit requesting damages for “mental anguish caused by breach of [the] contract”); Ingersoll-Rand, 498 U. S., at 136 (suit brought under various tort and contract theories). And, the plaintiffs in these three cases all sought remedies beyond those authorized under ERISA. See Pilot Life, supra, at 43 (compensatory and punitive damages); Metropolitan Life, supra, at 61 (mental anguish); Ingersoll-Rand, supra, at 136 (punitive damages, mental anguish). And, in all these cases, the plaintiffs’ claims were pre-empted. The limited remedies available under ERISA are an inherent part of the “careful balancing” between ensuring fair and prompt enforcement of rights under a plan and the encouragement of the creation of such plans. Pilot Life, supra, at 55.
Second, the Court of Appeals believed that “the wording of [respondents’] plans is immaterial” to their claims, as “they invoke an external, statutorily imposed duty of ‘ordinary care.’ ” 307 F. 3d, at 309. But as we have already discussed, the wording of the plans is certainly material to their state causes of action, and the duty of “ordinary care” that the THCLA creates is not external to their rights under their respective plans.
Ultimately, the Court of Appeals rested its decision on one line from Rush Prudential. There, we described our holding in Ingersoll-Rand as follows: “[W]hile state law duplicated the elements of a claim available under ERISA, it converted the remedy from an equitable one under § 1132(a)(3) (available exclusively in federal district courts) into a legal one for money damages (available in a state tribunal).” 536 U. S., at 379. The point of this sentence was to describe why the state cause of action in Ingersoll-Rand was pre-empted by ERISA § 502(a): It was pre-empted because it attempted to convert an equitable remedy into a legal remedy. Nowhere in Rush Prudential did we suggest that the preemptive force of ERISA § 502(a) is limited to the situation in which a state cause of action precisely duplicates a cause of action under ERISA § 502(a).
Nor would it be consistent with our precedent to conclude that only strictly duplicative state causes of action are preempted. Frequently, in order to receive exemplary damages on a state claim, a plaintiff must prove facts beyond the bare minimum necessary to establish entitlement to an award. Cf. Allis-Chalmers, 471 U. S., at 217 (bad-faith refusal to honor a claim needed to be proved in order to recover exemplary damages). In order to recover for'mental anguish, for instance, the plaintiffs in Ingersoll-Rand and Metropolitan Life would presumably have had to prove the existence of mental anguish; there is no such element in an ordinary suit brought under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B). See Ingersoll-Rand, supra, at 136; Metropolitan Life, supra, at 61. This did not save these state causes of action from pre-emption. Congress’ intent to make the ERISA civil enforcement mechanism exclusive would be undermined if state causes of action that supplement the ERISA § 502(a) remedies were permitted, even if the elements of the state cause of action did not precisely duplicate the elements of an ERISA claim.
C
Respondents also argue — for the first time in their brief to this Court — that the THCLA is a law that regulates insurance, and hence that ERISA § 514(b)(2)(A) saves their causes of action from pre-emption (and thereby from complete preemption). This argument is unavailing. The existence of a comprehensive remedial scheme can demonstrate an “overpowering federal policy” that determines the interpretation of a statutory provision designed to save state law from being pre-empted. Rush Prudential, 536 U. S., at 375. ERISA’s civil enforcement provision is one such example. See ibid.
As this Court stated in Pilot Life, “our understanding of [§ 514(b)(2)(A)] must be informed by the legislative intent concerning the civil enforcement provisions provided by ERISA § 502(a), 29 U. S. C. § 1132(a).” 481 U. S., at 52. The Court concluded that “[t]he policy choices reflected in the inclusion of certain remedies and the exclusion of others under the federal scheme would be completely undermined if ERISA-plan participants and beneficiaries were free to obtain remedies under state law that Congress rejected in ERISA.” Id., at 54. The Court then held, based on
“the common-sense understanding of the saving clause, the McCarran-Ferguson Act factors defining the business of insurance, and, most importantly, the clear expression of congressional intent that ERISA’s civil enforcement scheme be exclusive,... that [the plaintiff’s] state law suit asserting improper processing of a claim for benefits under an ERISA-regulated plan is not saved by § 514(b)(2)(A).” Id., at 57 (emphasis added).
Pilot Life’s reasoning applies here with full force. Allowing respondents to proceed with their state-law suits would “pose an obstacle to the purposes and objectives of Congress.” Id., at 52. As this Court has recognized in both Rush Prudential and Pilot Life, ERISA § 514(b)(2)(A) must be interpreted in light of the congressional intent to create an exclusive federal remedy in ERISA § 502(a). Under ordinary principles of conflict pre-emption, then, even a state law that can arguably be characterized as “regulating insurance” will be pre-empted if it provides a separate vehicle to assert a claim for benefits outside of, or in addition to, ERISA’s remedial scheme.
IV
Respondents, their amici, and some Courts of Appeals have relied heavily upon Pegram v. Herdrich, 530 U. S. 211 (2000), in arguing that ERISA does not pre-empt or completely pre-empt state suits such as respondents’. They, contend that Pegram makes it clear that causes of action such as respondents’ do not “relate to [an] employee benefit plan,” ERISA § 514(a), 29 U. S. C. § 1144(a), and hence are not pre-empted. See Brief for Respondents 35-38; Cicio v. Does, 321 F. 3d 83, 100-104 (CA2 2003), cert. pending sub nom. Vytra Healthcare v. Cicio, No. 03-69 [Reporter’s Note: See post, p. 933]; see also Land v. CIGNA Healthcare of Fla., 339 F. 3d 1286, 1292-1294 (CA11 2003).
Pegram cannot be read so broadly. In Pegram, the plaintiff sued her physician-owned-and-operated HMO (which provided medical coverage through plaintiff’s employer pursuant to an ERISA-regulated benefit plan) and her treating physician, both for medical malpractice and for a breach of an ERISA fiduciary duty. See 530 U. S., at 215-216. The plaintiff’s treating physician was also the person charged with administering plaintiff’s benefits; it was she who decided whether certain treatments were covered. See id., at 228. We reasoned that the physician’s “eligibility decision and the treatment decision were inextricably mixed.” Id., at 229. We concluded that “Congress did not intend [the defendant HMO] or any other HMO to be treated as a fiduciary to the extent that it makes mixed eligibility decisions acting through its physicians.” Id., at 231.
A benefit determination under ERISA, though, is generally a fiduciary act. See Bruch, 489 U. S., at 111-113. “At common law, fiduciary duties characteristically attach to decisions about managing assets and distributing property to beneficiaries.” Pegram, supra, at 231; cf. 2A A. Scott & W. Fratcher, Law of Trusts §§ 182, 183 (4th ed. 1987); G. Bogert & G. Bogert, Law of Trusts & Trustees § 541 (rev. 2d ed. 1993). Hence, a benefit determination is part and parcel of the ordinary fiduciary responsibilities connected to the administration of a plan. See Varity Corp. v. Howe, 516 U. S. 489, 512 (1996) (relevant plan fiduciaries owe a “fiduciary duty with respect to the interpretation of plan documents and the payment of claims”). The fact that a benefits determination is infused with medical judgments does not alter this result.
Pegram itself recognized this principle. Pegram, in highlighting its conclusion that “mixed eligibility decisions” were not fiduciary in nature, contrasted the operation of “[traditional trustees administering] a medical trust” and “physicians through whom HMOs act.” 530 U. S., at 231-232. A traditional medical trust is administered by “paying out money to buy medical care, whereas physicians making mixed eligibility decisions consume the money as well.” Ibid. And, significantly, the Court stated that “[p]rivate trustees do not make treatment judgments.” Id., at 232. But a trustee managing a medical trust undoubtedly must make administrative decisions that require the exercise of medical judgment. Petitioners are not the employers of respondents’ treating physicians and are therefore in a somewhat analogous position to that of a trustee for a traditional medical trust.
ERISA itself and its implementing regulations confirm this interpretation. ERISA defines a fiduciary as any person “to the extent... he has any discretionary authority or discretionary responsibility in the administration of [an employee benefit] plan.” § 3(21)(A)(iii), 29 U. S. C. § 1002(21)(A)(iii). When administering employee benefit plans, HMOs must make discretionary decisions regarding eligibility for plan benefits, and, in this regard, must be treated as plan fiduciaries. See Varity Corp., supra, at 511 (plan administrator “engages in a fiduciary act when making a discretionary determination about whether a claimant is entitled to benefits under the terms of the plan documents”). Also, ERISA §503, which specifies minimum requirements for a plan’s claim procedure, requires plans to “afford a reasonable opportunity to any participant whose claim for benefits has been denied for a full and fair review by the appropriate named fiduciary of the decision denying the claim.” 29 U. S. C. §1133(2). This strongly suggests that the ultimate decisionmaker in a plan regarding an award of benefits must be a fiduciary and must be acting as a fiduciary when determining a participant’s or beneficiary’s claim. The relevant regulations also establish extensive requirements to ensure full and fair review of benefit denials. See 29 CFR § 2560.503-1 (2003). These regulations, on their face, apply equally to health benefit plans and other plans, and do not draw distinctions between medical and nonmedical benefits determinations. Indeed, the- regulations strongly imply that benefits determinations involving medical judgments are, just as much as any other benefits determinations, actions by plan fiduciaries. See, e. g., § 2560.503 — 1(h)(3)(iii). Classifying any entity with discretionary authority over benefits determinations as anything but a plan fiduciary would thus conflict with ERISA’s statutory and regulatory scheme.
Since administrators making benefits determinations, even determinations based extensively on medical judgments, are ordinarily acting as plan fiduciaries, it was essential to Pe- gram’s conclusion that the decisions challenged there were truly “mixed eligibility and treatment decisions,” 530 U. S., at 229, i. e., medical necessity decisions made by the plaintiff’s treating physician qua treating physician and qua benefits administrator. Put another way, the reasoning of Pe-gram “only make[s] sense where the underlying negligence also plausibly constitutes medical maltreatment by a party who can be deemed to be a treating physician or such a physician’s employer.” Cicio, 321 F. 3d, at 109 (Calabresi, J., dissenting in part). Here, however, petitioners are neither respondents’ treating physicians nor the employers of respondents’ treating physicians. Petitioners’ coverage decisions, then, are pure eligibility decisions, and Pegram is not implicated.
V
We hold that respondents’ causes of action, brought to remedy only the denial of benefits under ERISA-regulated benefit plans, fall within the scope of, and are completely pre-empted by, ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B), and thus removable to federal district court. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
In this Court, petitioners do not claim or argue that respondents’ causes of action fall under ERISA § 502(a)(2). Because petitioners do not argue this point, and since we can resolve these cases entirely by reference to ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B), we do not address ERISA § 502(a)(2).
Respondents also argue that the benefit due under their ERISAregulated employee benefit plans is simply the membership in the respective HMOs, not coverage for the particular medical treatments that are delineated in the plan documents. See Brief for Respondents 28-30. Respondents did not identify this possible argument in their brief in opposition to the petitions for certiorari, and we deem it waived. See this Court’s Rule 15.2.
To take a clear example, if the terms of the health care plan specifically exclude from coverage the cost of an appendectomy, then any injuries caused by the refusal to cover the appendectomy are properly attributed to the terms of the plan itself, not the managed care entity that applied those terms.
Respondents also argue that ERISA § 502(a) completely pre-empts a
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | J | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Thomas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
When a debtor files a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, all of the debtor’s assets become property of the bankruptcy estate, see 11 U. S. C. § 541, subject to the debtor’s right to reclaim certain property as “exempt,” § 522(0. The Bankruptcy Code specifies the types of property debtors may exempt, § 522(b), as well as the maximum value of the exemptions a debtor may claim in certain assets, § 522(d). Property a debtor claims as exempt will be excluded from the bankruptcy estate “[u]nless a party in interest” objects. §522(0.
This case presents an opportunity for us to resolve a disagreement among the Courts of Appeals about what constitutes a claim of exemption to which an interested party must object under §522(0- The issue is whether an interested party must object to a claimed exemption where, as here, the Code defines the property the debtor is authorized to exempt as an interest, the value of which may not exceed a certain dollar amount, in a particular type of asset, and the debtor’s schedule of exempt property accurately describes the asset and declares the “value of [the] claimed exemption” in that asset to be an amount within the limits that the Code prescribes. Fed. Rule Bkrtcy. Proc. Official Form 6, Schedule C (1991) (hereinafter Schedule C). We hold that, in cases such as this, an interested party need not object to an exemption claimed in this manner in order to preserve the estate’s ability to recover value in the asset beyond the dollar value the debtor expressly declared exempt.
I
Respondent Nadejda Reilly filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy when her catering business failed. She supported her petition with various schedules and statements, two of which are relevant here: Schedule B, on which the Bankruptcy Rules require debtors to list their assets (most of which become property of the estate), and Schedule C, on which the Rules require debtors to list the property they wish to reclaim as exempt. The assets Reilly listed on Schedule B included an itemized list of cooking and other kitchen equipment that she described as “business equipment,” and to which she assigned an estimated market value of $10,718. App. 40a, 49a-55a.
On Schedule C, Reilly claimed two exempt interests in this equipment pursuant to different sections of the Code. Reilly claimed a “tool[s] of the trade” exemption of $1,850 in the equipment under § 522(d)(6), which permits a debtor to exempt his “aggregate interest, not to exceed [$1,850] in value, in any implements, professional books, or tools, of [his] trade.” See also 69 Fed. Reg. 8482 (2004) (Table). And she claimed a miscellaneous exemption of $8,868 in the equipment under § 522(d)(5), which, at the time she filed for bankruptcy, permitted a debtor to take a “wildcard” exemption equal to the “debtor’s aggregate interest in any property, not to exceed” $10,225 “in value.” See App. 58a. The total value of these claimed exemptions ($10,718) equaled the value Reilly separately listed on Schedules B and C as the equipment’s estimated market value, see id., at 49a, 58a.
Subject to exceptions not relevant here, the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure require interested parties to object to a debtor’s claimed exemptions within 30 days after the conclusion of the creditors’ meeting held pursuant to Rule 2003(a). See Fed. Rule Bkrtcy. Proc. 4003(b). If an interested party fails to object within the time allowed, a claimed exemption will exclude the subject property from the estate even if the exemption’s value exceeds what the Code permits. See, e. g., § 522(1); Taylor v. Freeland & Kronz, 503 U. S. 638, 642-643 (1992).
Petitioner William G. Schwab, the trustee of Reilly’s bankruptcy estate, did not object to Reilly’s claimed exemptions in her business equipment because the dollar value Reilly assigned each exemption fell within the limits that §§ 522(d)(5) and (6) prescribe. App. 163a. But because an appraisal revealed that the total market value of Reilly’s business equipment could be as much as $17,200, Schwab moved the Bankruptcy Court for permission to auction the equipment so Reilly could receive the $10,718 she claimed as exempt, and the estate could distribute the equipment’s remaining value (approximately $6,500) to Reilly’s creditors. Id., at 141a-143a.
Reilly opposed Schwab’s motion. She argued that by equating on Schedule C the total value of the exemptions she claimed in the equipment with the equipment’s estimated market value, she had put Schwab and her creditors on notice that she intended to exempt the equipment’s full value, even if that amount turned out to be more than the dollar amount she declared, and more than the Code allowed. Id., at 165a. Citing § 522(1), Reilly asserted that because her Schedule C notified Schwab of her intent to exempt the full value of her business equipment, he was obliged to object if he wished to preserve the estate’s right to retain any value in the equipment in excess of the $10,718 she estimated. Because Schwab did not object within the time prescribed by Rule 4003(b), Reilly asserted that the estate forfeited its claim to such value. Id., at 165a. Reilly further informed the Bankruptcy Court that exempting her business equipment from the estate was so important to her that she would dismiss her bankruptcy case if doing so was the only way to avoid the equipment’s sale at auction.
The Bankruptcy Court denied both Schwab’s motion to auction the equipment and Reilly’s conditional motion to dismiss her case. See In re Reilly, 403 B. R. 336 (Bkrtcy. Ct. MD Pa. 2006). Schwab sought relief from the District Court, arguing that neither the Code nor Rule 4003(b) requires a trustee to object to a claimed exemption where the amount the debtor declares as the “value of [the debtor’s] claimed exemption” in certain property is an amount within the limits the Code prescribes. The District Court rejected Schwab’s argument, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. See In re Reilly, 534 F. 3d 173 (CA3 2008).
The Court of Appeals agreed with the Bankruptcy Court that by equating on Schedule C the total value of her exemptions in her business equipment with the equipment’s market value, Reilly “indicate[d] the intent” to exempt the equipment’s full value. Id., at 174. In reaching this conclusion, the Court of Appeals relied on our decision in Taylor:
“[W]e believe this case to be controlled by Taylor. Just as we perceive it was important to the Taylor Court that the debtor meant to exempt the full amount of the property by listing 'unknown’ as both the value of the property and the value of the exemption, it is important to us that Reilly valued the business equipment at $10,718 and claimed an exemption in the same amount. Such an identical listing put Schwab on notice that Reilly intended to exempt the property fully.
“ ‘[A]n unstated premise’ of Taylor was ‘that a debtor who exempts the entire reported value of an asset is claiming the “full amount,” whatever it turns out to be.’” 534 F. 3d, at 178-179.
Relying on this “unstated premise,” the Court of Appeals held that Schwab’s failure to object to Reilly’s claimed exemptions entitled Reilly to the equivalent of an in-kind interest in her business equipment, even though the value of that exemption exceeded the amount that Reilly declared on Schedule C and the amount that the Code allowed her to withdraw from the bankruptcy estate. Ibid.
As noted, the Court of Appeals’ decision adds to disagreement among the Circuits about what constitutes a claim of exemption to which an interested party must object under §522(l). We granted certiorari to resolve this conflict. See 556 U. S. 1207 (2009). We conclude that the Court of Appeals’ approach fails to account for the text of the relevant Code provisions and misinterprets our decision in Taylor. Accordingly, we reverse.
II
The starting point for our analysis is the proper interpretation of Reilly’s Schedule C. If we read the Schedule Reilly’s way, she claimed exemptions in her business equipment that could exceed statutory limits, and thus claimed exemptions to which Schwab should have objected if he wished to enforce those limits for the benefit of the estate. If we read Schedule C Schwab’s way, Reilly claimed valid exemptions to which Schwab had no duty to object. The Court of Appeals construed Schedule C Reilly’s way and interpreted her claimed exemptions as improper, and therefore objectionable, even though their declared value was facially within the applicable Code limits. In so doing, the Court of Appeals held that trustees evaluating the validity of exemptions in cases like this cannot take a debtor’s claim at face value, and specifically cannot rely on the fact that the amount the debtor declares as the “value of [the] claimed exemption” is within statutory limits. Instead, the trustee’s duty to object turns on whether the interplay of various schedule entries supports an inference that the debtor “intended” to exempt a dollar value different than the one she wrote on the form. 534 F. 3d, at 178. This complicated view of the trustee’s statutory obligation, and the strained reading of Schedule C on which it rests, is inconsistent with the Code.
The parties agree that this case is governed by § 522(0, which states that a Chapter 7 debtor must “file a list of property that the debtor claims as exempt under subsection (b) of this section,” and further states that “[u]nless a party in interest objects, the property claimed as exempt on such list is exempt.” The parties further agree that the “list” to which § 522(0 refers is the “list of property... claim[ed] as exempt” currently known as “Schedule C.” See Schedule C. The parties, like the Courts of Appeals, disagree about what information on Schedule C defines the “property claimed as exempt” for purposes of evaluating an exemption’s propriety under §522(Z). Reilly asserts that the “property claimed as. exempt” is defined by reference to all the information on Schedule C, including the estimated market value of each asset in which the debtor claims an exempt interest. Schwab and the United States as amicus curiae argue that the Code specifically defines the “property claimed as exempt” as an interest, the value of which may not exceed a certain dollar amount, in a particular asset, not as the asset itself. Accordingly, they argue that the value of the property claimed exempt, i. e., the value of the debtor’s exempt interest in the asset, should be judged on the value the debtor assigns the interest, not on the value the debtor assigns the asset. The point of disagreement is best illustrated by the relevant portion of Reilly’s Schedule C: According to Reilly, Schwab was required to treat the estimate of market value she entered in column 4 as part of her claimed exemption in identifying the “property claimed as exempt” under §522(7). See Brief for Respondent 22-28. Relying on this premise, Reilly argues that where, as here, a debtor equates the total value of her claimed exemptions in a certain asset (column 3) with her estimate of the asset's market value (column 4), she establishes the “property claimed as exempt” as the full value of the asset, whatever that turns out to be. See ibid. Accordingly, Reilly argues that her Schedule C clearly put Schwab on notice that she “intended” to claim an exemption for the full value of her business equipment, and that Schwab’s failure to oppose the exemption in a timely manner placed the full value of the equipment outside the estate’s reach.
Schedule C-Property Claimed as Exempt
Description of Property
Specify Law Providing Each Exemption
Value of Claimed Exemption
Current Market Value of Property Without Deducting Exemptions
Schedule B
Personal
Property
See attached 11 U. S. c. 1,850 10,718
list of business § 522(d)(6)
equipment. 11 U. S. C. 8,868
§ 522(d)(5)
Schwab does not dispute that columns 3 and 4 apprised him that Reilly equated the total value of her claimed exemptions in the equipment ($1,850 plus $8,868) with the equipment’s market value ($10,718). He simply disagrees with Reilly that this “identical listing put [him] on notice that Reilly intended to exempt the property fully,” regardless of whether its value exceeded the exemption limits the Code prescribes. 534 F. 3d, at 178. Schwab and amicus United States instead contend that the Code defines the “property” Reilly claimed as exempt under §522(Z) as an “interest” whose value cannot exceed a certain dollar amount. Brief for Petitioner 20-26; Reply Brief for Petitioner 3-6; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 12-18. Construing Reilly’s Schedule C in light of this statutory definition, they contend that Reilly’s claimed exemption was facially unobjectionable because the “property claimed as exempt” (i e., two interests in her business equipment worth $8,868 and $1,850, respectively) is property Reilly was clearly entitled to exclude from her estate under the Code provisions she referenced in column 2. See supra, at 780 (citing §§ 522(d)(5) and (6)). Accordingly, Schwab and the United States conclude that Schwab had no obligation to object to the exemption in order to preserve for the estate any value in Reilly’s business equipment beyond the total amount ($10,718) Reilly properly claimed as exempt.
We agree. The portion of § 522(0 that resolves this case is not, as Reilly asserts, the provision stating that the “property claimed as exempt on [Schedule C] is exempt” unless an interested party objects. Rather, it is the portion of §522(0 that defines the target of the objection, namely, the portion that says Schwab has a duty to object to the “list of property that the debtor claims as exempt under subsection (b).” (Emphasis added.) That subsection, § 522(b), does not define the “property claimed as exempt” by reference to the estimated market value on which Reilly and the Court of Appeals rely. Brief for Respondent 22-23; 534 F. 3d, at 178. Section 522(b) refers only to property defined in § 522(d), which in turn lists 12 categories of property that a debtor may claim as exempt. As we have recognized, most of these categories (and all of the categories applicable to Reilly’s exemptions) define the “property” a debtor may “clai[m] as exempt” as the debtor’s “interest” — up to a specified dollar amount — in the assets described in the category, not as the assets themselves. §§ 522(d)(5)-(6); see also §§ 522(d)(1) — (4), (8); Rousey v. Jacoway, 544 U. S. 320, 325 (2005); Owen v. Owen, 500 U. S. 305, 310 (1991). Viewing Reilly’s form entries in light of this definition, we agree with Schwab and the United States that Schwab had no duty to object to the property Reilly claimed as exempt (two interests in her business equipment worth $1,850 and $8,868) because the stated value of each interest, and thus of the “property claimed as exempt,” was within the limits the Code allows.
Reilly’s contrary view of Schwab’s obligations under §522(Z) does not withstand scrutiny because it defines the target of a trustee’s objection — the “property claimed as exempt” — based on language in Schedule C and dictionary definitions of “property,” see Brief for Respondent 24-25, 40-41, that the definition in the Code itself overrides.* * Although we may look to dictionaries and the Bankruptcy Rules to determine the meaning of words the Code does not define, see, e. g., Rousey, supra, at 330, the Code’s definition of the “property claimed as exempt” in this case is clear. As noted above, §§ 522(d)(5) and (6) define the “property claimed as exempt” as an “interest” in Reilly’s business equipment, not as the equipment per se. Sections 522(d)(5) and (6) further and plainly state that claims to exempt such interests are statutorily permissible, and thus unobjectionable, if the value of the claimed interest is below a particular dollar amount. That is the case here, and Schwab was entitled to rely upon these provisions in evaluating whether Reilly’s exemptions were objectionable under the Code. See Lamie v. United States Trustee, 540 U. S. 526, 534 (2004); Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank, N. A., 530 U. S. 1, 6 (2000). The Court of Appeals’ contrary holding not only fails to account for the Code’s definition of the “property claimed as exempt.” It also fails to account for the provisions in § 522(d) that permit debtors to exempt certain property in kind or in full regardless of value. See, e. g., §§ 522(d)(9) (professionally prescribed health aids), (10)(C) (disability benefits), (7) (unmatured life insurance contracts). We decline to construe Reilly’s claimed exemptions in a manner that elides the distinction between these provisions and provisions such as §§ 522(d)(5) and (6), see, e. g., Duncan v. Walker, 533 U. S. 167, 174 (2001), particularly based upon an entry on Schedule C — Reilly’s estimate of her equipment’s market value — to which the Code does not refer in defining the “property claimed as exempt.”
For all of these reasons, we conclude that Schwab was entitled to evaluate the propriety of the claimed exemptions based on three, and only three, entries on Reilly’s Schedule C: the description of the business equipment in which Reilly claimed the exempt interests; the Code provisions governing the claimed exemptions; and the amounts Reilly listed in the column titled “value of claimed exemption.” In reaching this conclusion, we do not render the market value estimate on Reilly’s Schedule C superfluous. We simply confine the estimate to its proper role: aiding the trustee in administering the estate by helping him identify assets that may have value beyond the dollar amount the debtor claims as exempt, or whose full value may not be available for exemption because a portion of the interest is, for example, encumbered by an unavoidable lien. See, e. g., 3 W. Norton & W. Norton, Bankruptcy Law and Practice § 56:7 (3d ed. 2009); Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 16; Dept, of Justice, Executive Office for U. S. Trustees, Handbook for Chapter 7 Trustees, p. 8-1 (2005), http://www.justice.gov/ust/eo/private_ trustee / library /chapter07 / docs / 7handbookl008 / Ch7_ Handbookpdf (as visited June 14, 2010, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file). As noted, most assets become property of the estate upon commencement of a bankruptcy case, see 11 U. S. C. § 541, and exemptions represent the debtor’s attempt to reclaim those assets or, more often, certain interests in those assets, to the creditors’ detriment. Accordingly, it is at least useful for a trustee to be able to compare the value of the claimed exemption (which typically represents the debtor’s interest in a particular asset) with the asset’s estimated market value (which belongs to the estate subject to any valid exemption) without having to consult separate schedules.
Our interpretation of Schwab’s statutory obligations is not only consistent with the governing Code provisions; it is also consistent with the historical treatment of bankruptcy exemptions. Congress has permitted debtors to exempt certain property from their bankruptcy estates for more than two centuries. See Act of Apr. 4, 1800, ch. 19, § 5, 2 Stat. 23. Throughout these periods, debtors have validly exempted property based on forms that required the debtor to list the value of a claimed exemption without also estimating the market value of the asset in which the debtor claimed the exempt interest. See Brief for Respondent 46, n. 7 (citing Sup. Ct. Bkrtcy. Form 20 (1877)). Indeed, it was not until 1991 that Schedule B-4 was redesignated as Schedule C and amended to require the estimate of market value on which Reilly so heavily relies. See Schedule C. This amendment was not occasioned by legislative changes that altered the Code’s definition of “the property claimed as exempt” in this case as an “interest,” not to exceed a certain dollar amount, in Reilly’s business equipment. Accordingly, we agree with Schwab and the United States that this recent amendment to the exemption form does not compel Reilly’s view of Schwab’s statutory obligations, or render the claimed exemptions in this ease objectionable under the Code. See Reply Brief for Petitioner 9-11; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 16-17.
III
The Court of Appeals erred in holding that our decision in Taylor dictates a contrary conclusion. See 534 F. 3d, at 178. Taylor does not rest on what the debtor “meant” to exempt. 534 F. 3d, at 178. Rather, Taylor applies to the face of a debtor’s claimed exemption the Code provisions that compel reversal here.
The debtor in Taylor, like the debtor here, filed a schedule of exemptions with the Bankruptcy Court on which the debtor described the property subject to the claimed exemption, identified the Code provision supporting the exemption, and listed the dollar value of the exemption. Critically, however, the debtor in Taylor did not, like the debtor here, state the value of the claimed exemption as a specific dollar amount at or below the limits the Code allows. Instead, the debtor in Taylor listed the value of the exemption itself as “$ unknown”:
Schedule B-4. -Property Claimed Exempt
Type of Property
Location, Description, and, So Far as Relevant to the Claim of Exemption, Present Use of Property
Specify the Statute Creating the Exemption
Value Claimed Exempt
Proceeds from lawsuit
Winn v. TWA Claim for lost wages
11 U. S. C. 522(b)(d)
unknown
The interested parties in Taylor agreed that this entry rendered the debtor’s claimed exemption objectionable on its face because the exemption concerned an asset (lawsuit proceeds) that the Code did not permit the debtor to exempt beyond a specific dollar amount. See 503 U. S., at 642. Accordingly, although this case and Taylor both concern the consequences of a trustee’s failure to object to a claimed exemption within the time specified by Rule 4003, the question arose in Taylor on starkly different facts. In Taylor, the question concerned a trustee’s obligation to object to the debtor’s entry of a “value claimed exempt” that was not plainly within the limits the Code allows. In this case, the opposite is true. The amounts Reilly listed in the Schedule C column titled “Value of Claimed Exemption” are facially within the limits the Code prescribes and raise no warning flags that warranted an objection. See supra, at 780.
Taylor supports this conclusion. In holding otherwise, the Court of Appeals focused on what it described as Taylor’s “'unstated premise”’ that '"a debtor who exempts the entire reported value of an asset is claiming the “full amount,” whatever it turns out to be.’” 534 F. 3d, at 179. But Taylor does not rest on this premise. It establishes and applies the straightforward proposition that an interested party must object to a claimed exemption if the amount the debtor lists as the “value claimed exempt” is not within statutory limits, a test the value ($ unknown) in Taylor failed, and the values ($8,868 and $1,850) in this ease pass.
We adhere to this test. Doing otherwise would not only depart from Taylor and ignore the presumption that parties act lawfully and with knowledge of the law, cf. United States v. Budd, 144 U. S. 154, 163 (1892); it would also require us to expand the statutory definition of “property claimed as exempt” and the universe of information an interested party must consider in evaluating the validity of a claimed exemption. Even if the Code allowed such expansions, they would be ill advised. As evidenced by the differences between Reilly’s Schedule C and the schedule in Taylor, preprinted bankruptcy schedules change over time. Basing the definition of the “property claimed as exempt,” and thus an interested party’s obligation to object under § 522(0, on inferences that party must draw from evolving forms, rather than on the facial validity of the value the debtor assigns the “property claimed as exempt” as defined by the Code, would undermine the predictability the statute is designed to provide. For all of these reasons, we take Reilly’s exemptions at face value and find them unobjectionable under the Code, so the objection deadline we enforced in Taylor is inapplicable here.
IV
In a final effort to defend the Court of Appeals’ judgment, Reilly asserts that her approach to § 522(Z) is necessary to vindicate the Code’s goal of giving debtors a fresh start, and to further its policy of discouraging trustees and creditors from sleeping on their rights. See Brief for Respondent 21, 55-68. Although none of Reilly’s policy arguments can overcome the Code provisions or the aspects of Taylor that govern this case, our decision fully accords with all of the policies she identifies. We agree that “exemptions in bankruptcy cases are part and parcel of the fundamental bankruptcy concept of a 'fresh start.’” Brief for Respondent 21 (quoting Rousey, 544 U. S., at 325); see Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Mass., 549 U. S. 365, 367 (2007). We disagree that this policy required Schwab to object to a facially valid claim of exemption on pain of forfeiting his ability to preserve for the estate any value in Reilly’s business equipment beyond the value of the interest she declared exempt. This approach threatens to convert a fresh start into a free pass.
As we emphasized in Rousey, “[t]o help the debtor obtain a fresh start, the Bankruptcy Code permits him to withdraw from the estate certain interests in property, such as his car or home, up to certain values.” 544 U. S., at 325 (emphasis added). The Code limits exemptions in this fashion because every asset the Code permits a debtor to withdraw from the estate is an asset that is not available to his creditors. See § 522(b)(1). Congress balanced the difficult choices that exemption limits impose on debtors with the economic harm that exemptions visit on creditors, and it is not for us to alter this balance by requiring trustees to object to claimed exemptions based on form entries beyond those that govern an exemption’s validity under the Code. See Lamie, 540 U. S., at 534, 538; Hartford, 530 U. S., at 6; United States v. Locke, 471 U. S. 84, 95 (1985).
Reilly nonetheless contends that our approach creates perverse incentives for trustees and creditors to sleep on their rights. See Brief for Respondent 64, n. 10, 67-69. Again, we disagree. Where a debtor intends to exempt nothing more than an interest worth a specified dollar amount in an asset that is not subject to an unlimited or in-kind exemption under the Code, our approach will ensure clear and efficient resolution of competing claims to the asset’s value. If an interested party does not object to the claimed interest by the time the Rule 4003 period expires, title to the asset will remain with the estate pursuant to § 541, and the debtor will be guaranteed a payment in the dollar amount of the exemption. If an interested party timely objects, the court will rule on the objection and, if it is improper, allow the debtor to make appropriate adjustments.
Where, as here, it is important to the debtor to exempt the full market value of the asset or the asset itself, our decision will encourage the debtor to declare the value of her claimed exemption in a manner that makes the scope of the exemption clear, for example, by listing the exempt value as “full fair market value (FMV)” or “100% of FMV.” Such a declaration will encourage the trustee to object promptly to the exemption if he wishes to challenge it and preserve for the estate any value in the' asset beyond relevant statutory limits. If the trustee fails to object, or if the trustee objects and the objection is overruled, the debtor will be entitled to exclude the full value of the asset. If the trustee objects and the objection is sustained, the debtor will be required either to forfeit the portion of the exemption that exceeds the statutory allowance, or to revise other exemptions or arrangements with her creditors to permit the exemption. See Fed. Rule Bkrtcy. Proc. 1009(a). Either re-suit will facilitate the expeditious and final disposition of assets, and thus enable the debtor (and the debtor’s creditors) to achieve a fresh start free of the finality and clouded-title concerns Reilly describes. See Brief for Respondent 57-59 (arguing that “[u]nder [Schwab’s] interpretation of Rule 4003(b), a debtor would never have the certainty of knowing whether or not he or she may keep her exempted property until the case had ended”); id., at 66.
For all of these reasons, the policy considerations Reilly cites support our approach. Where, as here, a debtor accurately describes an asset subject to an exempt interest and on Schedule C declares the “value of [the] claimed exemption” as a dollar amount within the range the Code allows, interested parties are entitled to rely upon that value as evidence of the claim’s validity. Accordingly, we hold that Schwab was not required to object to Reilly’s claimed exemptions in her business equipment in order to preserve the estate’s right to retain any value in the equipment beyond the value of the exempt interest. In reaching this conclusion, we express no judgment on the merits of, and do not foreclose the courts from entertaining on remand, procedural or other measures that may allow Reilly to avoid auction of her business equipment.
* * *
We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The 1994 version of 11 U. S. C. § 522(d)(5) allowed debtors to exempt an “aggregate interest in any property, not to exceed in value $800 plus up to $7,500 of any unused amount of the [homestead or burial plot] exemption provided under [§ 522(d)(1)].” In 2004, pursuant to § 104(b)(2), the Judicial Conference of the United States published notice that § 522(d)(5) would impose the $975 and $9,250 ($10,225 total) limits that governed Reilly’s April 2005 petition. See 69 Fed. Reg. 8482 (Table). In 2007 and 2010 the limits were again increased. See 72 id., at 7082 (Table); 75 id., at 8748 (Table).
Schwab concedes that the appraisal occurred before Rule 4003(b)’s 30-day window for objecting to the claimed exemptions had passed. See Brief for Petitioner 15.
Reilly’s desire to avoid the equipment’s auction is understandable because the equipment, which Reilly’s parents purchased for her despite their own financial difficulties, has “‘extraordinary sentimental value.’” Brief for Respondent 5 (quoting App. 152a-153a). But the sentimental value of the property cannot drive our decision in this case, because sentimental value is not a basis for construing the Bankruptcy Code. Because the Code imposes limits on exemptions, many debtors who seek to take advantage of the Code are, no doubt, put to the similarly difficult choice of parting with property of “extraordinary sentimental value.” Id., at 152a-153a; see infra, at 791-794.
Compare In re Williams, 104 F. 3d 688, 690 (CA4 1997) (holding that interested parties have no duty to object to a claimed exemption where the dollar amount the debtor assigns the exemption is facially within the range the Code allows for the type of property in issue); In re Wick, 276 F. 3d 412 (CA8 2002) (employing reasoning similar to Williams, but stopping short of articulating a clear rule), with In re Green, 31 F. 3d 1098, 1100 (CA11 1994) (“[A] debtor who exempts the entire reported value of an asset is claiming the [asset’s] ‘full amount,’ whatever it turns out to be”); In re Anderson, 377 B. R. 865 (Bkrtcy. App. Panel CA6 2007) (similar); In re Barroso-Herrans, 524 F. 3d 341, 344 (CA1 2008) (focusing on “how a reasonable trustee would have understood the filings under the circumstances”); and In re Hyman, 967 F. 2d 1316 (CA9 1992) (applying an analogous totality-of-the-drcumstances approach).
The forms, rules, treatise excerpts, and poliey considerations on which the dissent relies, see post, at 798-810 (opinion of Ginsburg, J.), must be read in light of the Bankruptcy Code provisions that govern this case, and must yield to those provisions in the event of conflict.
Bankruptcy Rule 4003 specifies the time within which the debtor must file Schedule C, as well as the time within which interested parties must object to the exemptions claimed thereon.
Schwab’s statutory duty to object to the exemptions in this case turns solely on whether the value of the property claimed as exempt exceeds statutory limits because the parties agree that Schwab had no cause to object to Reilly’s attempt to claim exemptions in the equipment at issue, or to the applicability of the Code provisions Reilly cited in support of her exemptions.
The dissent’s approach suffers from a similar flaw, and misstates our holding in critiquing it. See post, at 795-796 (asserting that by refusing to subject “challenges to the debtor’s valuation of exemptible assets” to the “30-day” objection period in Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4003(b), we “drastically reduc[e] Rule 4003’s governance”). Challenges to the valuation of what the dissent terms “exemptible assets” are not covered by Rule 4003(b) in the first place. Post, at 795. Challenges to “property claimed as exempt” as defined by the Code are covered by Rule 4003(b), but in this case that property is not objectionable, so the lack of an objection did not violate
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The interaction of two sections of an Oklahoma statute, Okla. Stat., Tit. 37, §§ 241 and 245 (.1958 and Supp. 1976), prohibits the sale of “nonintoxicating” 3.2% beer to males under the age of 21 and to females under the age of 18. The question to be decided is whether such a gender-based differential constitutes a denial to males 18-20 years of age of the equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
This action was brought in the District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on December 20, 1972, by appellant Craig, a male then between 18 and 21 years of age, and by appellant Whitener, a licensed vendor of 3.2% beer. The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief against enforcement of the gender-based differential on the ground that it constituted invidious discrimination against males 18-20 years of age. A three-judge court convened under 28 U. S. C. § 2281 sustained the constitutionality of the statutory differential and dismissed the action. 399 F. Supp. 1304 (1975). We noted probable jurisdiction of appellants’ appeal, 423 U. S. 1047 (1976). We reverse.
I
We first address a preliminary question of standing. Appellant Craig attained the age of 21 after we noted probable jurisdiction. Therefore, since only declaratory and injunctive relief against enforcement of the gender-based differential is sought, the controversy has been rendered moot as to Craig. See, e. g., DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U. S. 312 (1974). The question thus arises whether appellant Whitener, the licensed vendor of 3.2% beer, who has a live controversy against enforcement of the statute, may rely upon the equal protection objections of males 18-20 years of age to establish her claim of unconstitutionality of the age-sex differential. We conclude that she may.
Initially, it should be noted that, despite having had the opportunity to do so, appellees never raised before the District Court any objection to Whitener’s reliance upon the claimed unequal treatment of 18-20-year-old males as the premise of her equal protection challenge to Oklahoma’s 3.2% beer law. See 399 P. Supp., at 1306 n. 1. Indeed, at oral argument Oklahoma acknowledged that appellees always “presumed” that the vendor, subject to sanctions and loss of license for violation of the statute, was a proper party in interest to object to the enforcement of the sex-based regulatory provision. Tr. of Oral Arg. 41. While such a concession certainly would not be controlling upon the reach of this Court’s constitutional authority to exercise jurisdiction under Art. III, see, e. g., Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U. S. 727, 732 n. 3 (1972); cf. Data Processing Service v. Camp, 397 U. S. 150, 151 (1970), our decisions have settled that limitations on a litigant’s assertion of jus tertii are not constitutionally mandated, but rather stem from a salutary “rule of self-restraint” designed to minimize unwarranted intervention into controversies where the applicable constitutional questions are ill-defined and speculative. See, e. g., Barrows v. Jackson, 346 U. S. 249, 255, 257 (1953); see also Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U. S. 106, 123-124 (1976) (Powell, J.; dissenting). These prudential objectives, thought to be enhanced by restrictions on third-party standing, cannot be furthered here, where the lower court already has entertained the relevant constitutional challenge and the parties have sought — or at least have never resisted — an authoritative constitutional determination. In such circumstances, a decision by us to forgo consideration of the constitutional merits in order to await the initiation of a new challenge to the statute by injured third parties would be impermissibly to foster repetitive and time-consuming litigation under the guise of caution and prudence. Moreover, insofar as the applicable constitutional questions have been and continue to be presented vigorously and “cogently,” Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. S. 366, 397 (1898), the denial of jus tertii standing in deference to a direct class suit can serve no functional purpose. Our Brother Blackmun’s comment is pertinent: “[I]t may be that a class could be assembled, whose fluid membership always included some [males] with live claims. But if the assertion of the right is to be ‘representative’ to such an extent anyway, there seems little loss in terms of effective advocacy from allowing its assertion by” the present jus tertii champion. Singleton v. Wulff, supra, at 117-118.
In any event, we conclude that appellant Whitener has established independently her claim to assert jus tertii standing. The operation of §§ 241 and 245 plainly has inflicted “injury in fact” upon appellant sufficient to guarantee her “concrete adverseness,” Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 204 (1962), and to satisfy the constitutionally based standing requirements imposed by Art. III. The legal duties created by the statutory sections under challenge are addressed directly to vendors such as appellant. She is obliged either to heed the statutory discrimination, thereby incurring a direct economic injury through the constriction of her buyers’ market, or to disobey the statutory command and suffer, in the words of Oklahoma’s Assistant Attorney General, “sanctions and perhaps loss of license.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 41. This Court repeatedly has recognized that such injuries establish the threshold requirements of a “case or controversy” mandated by Art. III. See, e. g., Singleton v. Wulff, supra, at 113 (doctors who receive payments for their abortion services are “classically adverse” to government as payer); Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, 396 U. S. 229, 237 (1969); Barrows v. Jackson, supra, at 255-256.
As a vendor with standing to challenge the lawfulness of § § 241 and 245, appellant Whitener is entitled to assert those concomitant rights of third parties that would be “diluted or adversely affected” should her constitutional challenge fail and the statutes remain in force. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 481 (1965); see Note, Standing to Assert Constitutional Jus Tertii, 88 Harv. L. Rev. 423, 432 (1974). Otherwise, the threatened imposition of governmental sanctions might deter appellant Whitener and other similarly situated vendors from selling 3.2% beer to young males, thereby ensuring that “enforcement of the challenged restriction against the [vendor] would result indirectly in the violation of third parties' rights.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 510 (1975). Accordingly, vendors and those in like positions have been uniformly permitted to resist efforts at restricting their operations by acting as advocates of the rights of third parties who seek access to their market or function. See, e. g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438 (1972); Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, supra; Barrows v. Jackson, supra.
Indeed, the jus tertii question raised here is answered by our disposition of a like argument in Eisenstadt v. Baird, supra. There, as here, a state statute imposed legal duties and disabilities upon the claimant, who was convicted of distributing a package of contraceptive foam to a third party. Since the statute was directed at Baird and penalized his conduct, the Court did not hesitate — again as here — to conclude that the “case or controversy” requirement of Art. Ill was satisfied. 405 U. S., at 443. In considering Baird’s constitutional objections, the Court fully recognized his standing to defend the privacy interests of third parties. Deemed crucial to the decision to permit jus tertii standing was the recognition of “the impact of the litigation on the third-party interests.” Id., at 445. Just as the defeat of Baird’s suit and the “[enforcement of the Massachusetts statute will materially impair the ability of single persons to obtain contraceptives,” id., at 446, so too the failure of Whitener to prevail in this suit and the continued enforcement of §§ 241 and 245 will “materially impair the ability of” males 18-20 years of age to purchase 3.2% beer despite their classification by an overt gender-based criterion. Similarly, just as the Massachusetts law in Eisenstadt “prohibit[ed], not use, but distribution,” 405 U. S., at 446, and consequently the least awkward challenger was one in Baird’s position who was subject to that proscription, the law challenged here explicitly regulates the sale rather than use of 3.2% beer, thus leaving a vendor as the obvious claimant.
We therefore hold that Whitener has standing to- raise relevant equal protection challenges to Oklahoma’s gender-based law. We now consider those arguments.
II
A
Before 1972, Oklahoma defined the commencement of civil majority at age 18 for females and age 21 for males. Okla. Stat., Tit. 15, § 13 (1972 and Supp. 1976). In contrast, females were held criminally responsible as adults at age 18 and males at age 16. Okla. Stat., Tit. 10, § 1101 (a) (Supp. 1976). After the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held in 1972, on the authority of Reed v. Reed, 404 U. S. 71 (1971), that the age distinction was unconstitutional for purposes of establishing criminal responsibility as adults, Lamb v. Brown, 456 F. 2d 18, the Oklahoma Legislature fixed age 18 as applicable to both males and females. Okla. Stat., Tit. 10, § 1101 (a) (Supp. 1976). In 1972, 18 also was established as the age of majority for males and females in civil matters, Okla. Stat., Tit. 15, § 13 (1972 and Supp. 1976), except that §§241 and 245 of the 3.2% beer statute were simultaneously codified to create an exception to the gender-free rule.
Analysis may appropriately begin with the reminder that Reed emphasized that statutory classifications that distinguish between males and females are “subject to scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.” 404 U. S., at 75. To withstand constitutional challenge, previous cases establish that classifications by gender must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to achievement of those objectives. Thus, in Reed, the objectives of “reducing the workload on probate courts,” id., at 76, and “avoiding intrafamily controversy,” id., at 77, were deemed of insufficient importance to sustain use of an overt gender criterion in the appointment of administrators of intestate decedents’ estates. Decisions following Reed similarly have rejected administrative ease and convenience as sufficiently important objectives to justify gender-based classifications. See, e. g., Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 645, 656 (1972); Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U. S. 677, 690 (1973); cf. Schlesinger v. Ballard, 419 U. S. 498, 506-507 (1975). And only two Terms ago, Stanton v. Stanton, 421 U. S. 7 (1975), expressly stating that Reed v. Reed was “controlling,” 421 U. S., at 13, held that Reed required invalidation of a Utah differential age-of-majority statute, notwithstanding the statute’s coincidence with and furtherance of the State’s purpose of fostering “old notions” of role typing and preparing boys for their expected performance in the economic and political worlds. 421 U. S., at 14-15.
Reed v. Reed has also provided the underpinning for decisions that have invalidated statutes employing gender as an inaccurate proxy for other, more germane bases of classification. Hence, “archaic. and overbroad” generalizations, Schlesinger v. Ballard, supra, at 508, concerning the financial position of servicewomen, Frontiero v. Richardson, supra, at 689 n. 23, and working women, Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U. S. 636, 643 (1975), could not justify use of a gender line in determining eligibility for certain governmental entitlements. Similarly, increasingly outdated misconceptions concerning the role of females in the home rather than in the “marketplace and world of ideas” were rejected as loose-fitting characterizations incapable of supporting state statutory schemes that were premised upon their accuracy. Stanton v. Stanton, supra; Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U. S. 522, 535 n. 17 (1975). In light of the weak congruence between gender and the characteristic or trait that gender purported to represent, it was necessary that the legislatures choose either to realign their substantive laws in a gender-neutral fashion, or to adopt procedures for identifying those instances where the sex-centered generalization actually comported with fact. See, e. g., Stanley v. Illinois, supra, at 658; cf. Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U. S. 632, 650 (1974).
In this case, too, “Reed, we feel, is controlling...,” Stanton v. Stanton, supra, at 13. We turn then to the question whether, under Reed, the difference between males and females with respect to the purchase of 3.2% beer warrants the differential in age drawn by the Oklahoma statute. We conclude that it does not.
B
The District Court recognized that Reed v. Reed was controlling. In applying the teachings of that case, the court found the requisite important governmental objective in the traffic-safety goal proffered by the Oklahoma Attorney General, It then concluded that the statistics introduced by the appellees established that the gender-based distinction was substantially related to achievement of that goal.
C
We accept for purposes of discussion the District Court’s identification of the objective underlying §§ 241 and 245 as the enhancement of traffic safety. Clearly; the protection of public health and safety represents an important function of state and local governments However, appellees’ statistics in our view cannot support the conclusion that the gender-based distinction closely serves to achieve that objective and therefore the distinction cannot under Reed withstand equal protection challenge.
The appellees introduced a variety of statistical surveys. First, an analysis of arrest statistics for 1973 demonstrated that 18-20-year-old male arrests for “driving' under the influence” and “drunkenness” substantially exceeded female arrests for that same age period. Similarly, youths aged 17-21 were found to be overrepresented among those killed or injured in traffic accidents, with males again numerically exceeding females in this regard. Third, a random roadside survey in Oklahoma City revealed that young males were more inclined to drive and drink beer than were their female counterparts. Fourth, Federal Bureau of Investigation nationwide statistics exhibited a notable increase in arrests for “driving under the influence.” Finally, statistical evidence gathered in other jurisdictions, particularly Minnesota and Michigan, was offered to corroborate Oklahoma’s experience by indicating the pervasiveness of youthful participation in motor vehicle accidents following the imbibing of alcohol. Conceding that “the case is not free from doubt,” 399 F. Supp., at 1314, the District Court nonetheless concluded that this statistical showing substantiated “a rational basis for the legislative judgment underlying the challenged classification.” Id., at 1307.
Even were this statistical evidence accepted as accurate, it nevertheless offers only a weak answer to the equal protection question presented here. The most focused and relevant of the statistical surveys, arrests of 18-20-year-olds for alcohol-related driving offenses, exemplifies the ultimate unpersuasiveness of this evidentiary record. Viewed in terms of the correlation between sex and the actual activity that Oklahoma seeks to regulate — driving while under the influence of alcohol — the statistics broadly establish that.18% of females and 2% of males in that age group were arrested for that offense. While such a disparity is not trivial in a statistical sense, it hardly can form the basis for employment of a gender line as a classifying device. Certainly if maleness is to serve as a proxy for drinking and driving, a correlation of 2% must be considered an unduly tenuous “fit.” Indeed, prior cases have consistently rejected the use of sex as a decisionmaking factor even though the statutes in question certainly rested on far more predictive empirical relationships than this.
Moreover, the statistics exhibit a variety of other shortcomings that seriously impugn their value to equal protection analysis. Setting aside the obvious methodological problems, the surveys do not adequately justify the salient features of Oklahoma’s gender-based traffic-safety law. None purports to measure the use and dangerousness of 3.2% beer as opposed to alcohol generally, a detail that is of particular importance since, in light of its low alcohol level, Oklahoma apparently considers the 3.2% beverage to be “nonintoxicating.” Okla. Stat., Tit. 37, § 163.1 (1958); see State ex rel. Springer v. Bliss, 199 Okla. 198, 185 P. 2d 220 (1947). Moreover, many of the studies, while graphically documenting the unfortunate increase in driving while under the influence of alcohol, make no effort to relate their findings to age-sex differentials as involved here. Indeed, the only survey that explicitly centered its attention upon young drivers and their use of beer — albeit apparently not of the diluted 3.2% variety — reached results that hardly can be viewed as impressive in justifying either a gender or age classification.
There is no reason to belabor this line of analysis. It is unrealistic to expect either members of the judiciary or state officials to be well versed in the rigors of experimental or statistical technique. But this merely illustrates that proving broad sociological propositions by statistics is a dubious business, and one that inevitably is in tension with the normative philosophy that underlies the Equal Protection Clause. Suffice to say that the showing offered by the appellees does not satisfy us that sex represents a legitimate, accurate proxy for the regulation of drinking and driving. In fact, when it is further recognized that Oklahoma’s statute prohibits only the selling of 3.2% beer to young males and not their drinking the beverage once acquired (even after purchase by their 18-20-year-old female companions), the relationship between gender and traffic safety becomes far too tenuous to satisfy Reed’s requirement that the gender-based difference be substantially related to achievement of the statutory objective.
We hold, therefore, that under Reed, Oklahoma’s 3.2% beer statute invidiously discriminates against males 18-20 years of age.
D
Appellees argue, however, that §§241 and 245 enforce state policies concerning the sale and distribution of alcohol and by force of the Twenty-first Amendment should therefore be held to withstand the equal protection challenge. The District Court’s response to this contention is unclear. The court assumed that the Twenty-first Amendment “strengthened” the State’s police powers with respect to alcohol regulation, 399 F. Supp., at 1307, but then said that “the standards of review that [the Equal Protection Clause] mandates are not relaxed.” Id., at 1308. Our view is, and we hold, that the Twenty-first Amendment does not save the invidious gender-based discrimination from invalidation as a denial of equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The history of state regulation of alcoholic beverages dates from long before adoption of the Eighteenth Amendment. In the License Cases, 5 How. 504, 579 (1847), the Court recognized a broad authority in state governments to regulate the trade of alcoholic beverages within their borders free from implied restrictions under the Commerce Clause. Later in the century, however, Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U. S. 100 (1890), undercut the theoretical underpinnings of the License Cases. This led Congress, acting pursuant to its powers under the Commerce Clause, to reinvigorate the State's regulatory role through the passage of the Wilson and Webb-Kenyon Acts. See, e. g., Clark Distilling Co. v. Western Maryland R. Co., 242 U. S. 311 (1917) (upholding Webb-Kenyon Act); In re Rahrer, 140 U. S. 545 (1891) (upholding Wilson Act). With passage of the Eighteenth Amendment, the uneasy tension between the Commerce Clause and state police power temporarily subsided.
The Twenty-first Amendment repealed the Eighteenth Amendment in 1933. The wording of § 2 of the Twenty-first Amendment closely follows the Webb-Kenyon and Wilson Acts, expressing the framers’ clear intention of constitutionalizing the Commerce Clause framework established under those statutes. This Court’s decisions since have confirmed that the Amendment primarily created an exception to the normal operation of the Commerce Clause. See, e. g., Hostetter v. Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp., 377 U. S. 324, 330 (1964); Carter v. Virginia, 321 U. S. 131, 139-140 (1944) (Frankfurter, J., concurring); Finch & Co. v. McKittrick, 305 U. S. 395, 398 (1939). Even here, however, the Twenty-first Amendment does not pro tanto repeal the Commerce Clause, but merely requires that each provision “be considered in the light of the other, and in the context of the issues and interests at stake in any concrete case.” Hostetter v. Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp., supra, at 332; cf. Department of Revenue v. James Beam Distilling Co., 377 U. S. 341 (1964); Collins v. Yosemite Park & Curry Co., 304 U. S. 518 (1938).
Once passing beyond consideration of the Commerce Clause, the relevance of the Twenty-first Amendment to other constitutional provisions becomes increasingly doubtful. As one commentator has remarked: “Neither the text nor the history of the Twenty-first Amendment suggests that it qualifies individual rights protected by the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment where the sale or use of liquor is concerned.” P. Brest, Processes of Constitutional Decision-making, Cases and Materials, 258 (1975). Any departures from this historical view have been limited and sporadic. Two States successfully relied upon the Twenty-first Amendment to respond to challenges of major liquor importers to state authority to regulate the importation and manufacture of alcoholic beverages on Commerce Clause and Fourteenth Amendment grounds. See Mahoney v. Joseph Triner Corp., 304 U. S. 401 (1938); State Board v. Young’s Market Co., 299 U. S. 59, 64 (1936). In fact, however, the arguments in both cases centered upon importation of intoxicants, a regulatory area where the State’s authority under the Twenty-first Amendment is transparently clear, Hostetter v. Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp., supra, at 330, and n. 9, and touched upon purely economic matters that traditionally merit only the mildest review under the Fourteenth Amendment, see, e. g., Joseph E. Seagram & Sons v. Hostetter, 384 U. S. 35, 47-48, 50-51 (1966) (rejecting Fourteenth Amendment objections to state liquor laws on the strength of Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U. S. 726, 729-730 (1963) and Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U. S. 483 (1955)). Cases involving individual rights protected by the Due Process Clause have been treated in sharp contrast. For example, when an individual objected to the mandatory “posting” of her name in retail liquor establishments and her characterization as an “excessive drink [er],” the Twenty-first Amendment was held not to qualify the scope of her due process rights. Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U. S. 433, 436 (1971).
It is true that California v. LaRue, 409 U. S. 109, 115 (1972), relied upon the Twenty-first Amendment to “strengthen” the State’s authority to regulate live entertainment at establishments licensed to dispense liquor, at least when the performances “partake more of gross sexuality than of communication,” id., at 118. Nevertheless, the Court has never recognized sufficient “strength” in the Amendment to defeat an otherwise established claim of invidious discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Rather, Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis, 407 U. S. 163, 178-179 (1972), establishes that state liquor regulatory schemes cannot work invidious discriminations that violate the Equal Protection Clause.
Following this approach, both federal and state courts uniformly have declared the unconstitutionality of gender lines that restrain the activities of customers of state-regulated liquor establishments irrespective of the operation of the Twenty-first Amendment. See, e. g., White v. Fleming, 522 F. 2d 730 (CA7 1975); Women’s Liberation Union of R. I. v. Israel, 512 F. 2d 106 (CA1 1975); Daugherty v. Daley, 370 F. Supp. 338 (ND Ill. 1974) (three-judge court) ; Seidenberg v. McSorleys’ Old Ale House, Inc., 317 F. Supp. 593 (SDNY 1970); Commonwealth Alcoholic Beverage Control Bd. v. Burke, 481 S. W. 2d 52 (Ky. 1972); cf. Sail’er Inn, Inc. v. Kirby, 5 Cal. 3d 1, 485 P. 2d 529 (1971); Paterson Tavern & G. O. A. v. Hawthorne, 57 N. J. 180, 270 A. 2d 628 (1970). Even when state officials have posited sociological or empirical justifications for these gender-based differentiations, the courts have struck down discriminations aimed at an entire class under the guise of alcohol regulation. In fact, social science studies that have uncovered quantifiable differences in drinking tendencies dividing along both racial and ethnic lines strongly suggest the need for application of the Equal Protection Clause in preventing discriminatory treatment that almost certainly would be perceived as invidious.’ In sum, the principles embodied in the Equal Protection Clause are not to be rendered inapplicable by statistically measured but loose-fitting generalities concerning the drinking tendencies of aggregate- groups. We thus hold that the operation of the Twenty-first Amendment does not alter the application of equal protection standards that otherwise govern this case.
We conclude that the gender-based differential contained in Okla. Stat., Tit. 37, § 245 (1976 Supp.) constitutes a denial of the equal protection of the laws to males aged 18-20 and reverse the judgment of the District Court.
It is so ordered.
Sections 241 and 245 provide in pertinent part:
§ 241. “It shafi be unlawful for any person who holds a license to seE and dispense beer... to sell, barter or give to any minor any beverage containing more than one-half of one per cent of alcohol measured by volume and not more than three and two-tenths (3.2) per cent of alcohol measured by weight.
§ 245. “A'minor/ for the purposes of Section... 241... is defined as a female under the age of eighteen (18) years, and a male under the age of twenty-one (21) years.”
Appellants did not seek class certification of Craig as representative of other similarly situated males 18-20 years of age. See, e. g., Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393, 401 (1975).
The District Court’s opinion confirms that Whitener from the outset has based her constitutional challenge on gender-discrimination grounds, 399 F. Supp., at 1306, and “[n]o challenge is made to [her] standing and requisite interest in the controversy....” Id., at 1306 n. 1.
The standing question presented here is not answered by the principle stated in United States v. Raines, 362 U. S. 17, 21 (1960), that “one to whom application of a statute is constitutional will not be heard to attack the statute on the ground that impliedly it might also be taken as applying to other persons or other situations in which its application might be unconstitutional.” In Raines, the Court refused to permit certain public officials of Georgia to defend against application of the Civil Rights Act to their official conduct on the ground that the statute also might be construed to encompass the “purely private actions” of others. The Raines rule remains germane in such a setting, where the interests of the litigant and the rights of the proposed third parties are in no way mutually interdependent. Thus, a successful suit against Raines did not threaten to impair or diminish the independent private rights of others, and consequently, consideration of those third-party rights properly was deferred until another day.
Of course, the Raines principle has also been relaxed where legal action against the claimant threatens to “chill” the First Amendment rights of third parties. See, e. g., Lewis v. New Orleans, 415 U. S. 130 (1974).
The fact that Baird chose to disobey the legal duty imposed upon him by the Massachusetts anticontraception statute, resulting in his criminal conviction, 405 U. S., at 440, does not distinguish the standing inquiry from that pertaining to the anticipatory attack in this case. In both Eisenstadt and here, the challenged statutes compel jus tertii claimants either to cease their proscribed activities or to suffer appropriate sanctions. The existence of Art.. Ill “injury in fact” and the structure of the claimant’s relationship to the third parties are not altered by the litigative posture of the suit. And, certainly, no suggestion will be heard that Whitener’s anticipatory challenge offends the normal requirements governing such actions. See generally Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U. S. 452 (1974); Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U. S. 66 (1971); Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).
Kahn v. Shevin, 416 U. S. 351 (1974) and Schlesinger v. Ballard, 419 U. S. 498 (1975), upholding the use of gender-based classifications, rested upon the Court’s perception of the laudatory purposes of those laws as remedying disadvantageous conditions suffered by women in economic and military life. See 416 U. S., at 353-354; 419 U. S., at 508. Needless to say, in this case Oklahoma does not suggest that the age-sex differential was enacted to ensure the availability of 3.2% beer for women as compensation for previous deprivations.
That this was the true purpose is not at all self-evident. The purpose is not apparent from the face of the statute and the Oklahoma Legislature does not preserve statutory history materials capable of clarifying the objectives served by its legislative enactments. The District Court acknowledged the nonexistence of materials necessary “to reveal what the actual purpose of the legislature was,” but concluded that “we feel it apparent that a major purpose of the legislature was to promote the safety of the young persons affected and the public generally.” 399 F. Supp., at 1311 n. 6. Similarly, the attorney for Oklahoma, while proposing traffic safety as a legitimate rationale for the 3.2% beer law, candidly acknowledged at oral argument that he is unable to assert that traffic safety is “indeed the reason" for the gender line contained in § 245. Tr. of Oral Arg. 27. For this appeal we find adequate the appellee’s representation of legislative purpose, leaving for another day consideration of whether the statement of the State’s Assistant Attorney General should suffice to inform this Court of the legislature’s objectives, or whether the Court must determine if the litigant simply is selecting a convenient, but false, post hoc rationalization.
The disparities in 18-20-year-old male-female arrests were substantial for both categories of offenses: 427 versus 24 for driving under the influence of alcohol, and 966 versus 102 for drunkenness. Even if we assume that a legislature may rely on such arrest data in some situations, these figures do not offer support for a differential age line, for the disproportionate arrests of males persisted at older ages; indeed, in the case of arrests for drunkenness, the figures for all ages indicated “even more male involvement in such arrests at later ages.” 399 F. Supp., at 1309. See also n. 14, infra.
This survey drew no correlation between the accident figures for any age group and levels of intoxication found in those killed or injured.
For an analysis of the results of this exhibit, see n. 16, infra.
The FBI made no attempt to relate these arrest figures either to beer drinking or to an 18-21 age differential, but rather found that male arrests for all ages exceeded 90% of the total.
Obviously, arrest statistics do not embrace all individuals who drink and drive. But for purposes of analysis, this "underinclusiveness” must be discounted somewhat by the shortcomings inherent in this statistical sample, see n. 14, infra. In any event, we decide this case in light of the evidence offered by Oklahoma and know of no way of extrapolating these arrest statistics to take into account the driving and drinking population at large, including those who avoided arrest.
For example, we can conjecture that in Reed, Idaho’s apparent premise that women lacked experience in formal business matters (particularly compared to men) would have proved to be accurate in substantially more than 2% of all cases. And in both Frontiero and Wiesenfeld, we expressly found appellees’ empirical defense of mandatory dependency tests for men but not women to be unsatisfactory, even though we recognized that husbands are still far less likely to be dependent on their wives than vice versa. See, e. g., 411 U. S., at 688-690.
The very social stereotypes that find reflection in age-differential laws, see Stanton v. Stanton, 421 U. S., 7, 14-15 (1975), are likely substantially to distort the accuracy of these comparative statistics. Hence “reckless” young men who drink and drive are transformed into arrest statistics, whereas their female counterparts are chivalrously escorted home. See, e. g., W. Reckless & B. Kay, The Female Offender 4, 7, 13, 16-17 (Report to Presidential Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, 1967). Moreover, the Oklahoma surveys, gathered under a regime where the age-differential law in question has been in effect, are lacking in controls necessary for appraisal of the actual effectiveness of the male 3.2% beer prohibition. In this regard, the disproportionately high arrest statistics for young males — and, indeed, the growing alcohol-related arrest figures for all ages and sexes — simply may be taken to document the relative futility of controlling driving behavior by the 3.2% beer statute and like legislation, although we obviously have no means of estimating how many individuals, if any, actually were prevented from drinking by these laws.
See, e. g.,
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice KAGAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner Elijah Manuel was held in jail for some seven weeks after a judge relied on allegedly fabricated evidence to find probable cause that he had committed a crime. The primary question in this case is whether Manuel may bring a claim based on the Fourth Amendment to contest the legality of his pretrial confinement. Our answer follows from settled precedent. The Fourth Amendment, this Court has recognized, establishes "the standards and procedures" governing pretrial detention. See, e.g., Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 111, 95 S.Ct. 854, 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975). And those constitutional protections apply even after the start of "legal process" in a criminal case-here, that is, after the judge's determination of probable cause. See Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 274, 114 S.Ct. 807, 127 L.Ed.2d 114 (1994) (plurality opinion); id., at 290, 114 S.Ct. 807 (Souter, J., concurring in judgment). Accordingly, we hold today that Manuel may challenge his pretrial detention on the ground that it violated the Fourth Amendment (while we leave all other issues, including one about that claim's timeliness, to the court below).
I
Shortly after midnight on March 18, 2011, Manuel was riding through Joliet, Illinois, in the passenger seat of a Dodge Charger, with his brother at the wheel. A pair of Joliet police officers pulled the car over when the driver failed to signal a turn. See App. 90. According to the complaint in this case, one of the officers dragged Manuel from the car, called him a racial slur, and kicked and punched him as he lay on the ground. See id., at 31-32, 63. The policeman then searched Manuel and found a vitamin bottle containing pills. See id., at 64. Suspecting that the pills were actually illegal drugs, the officers conducted a field test of the bottle's contents. The test came back negative for any controlled substance, leaving the officers with no evidence that Manuel had committed a crime. See id., at 69. Still, the officers arrested Manuel and took him to the Joliet police station. See id., at 70.
There, an evidence technician tested the pills once again, and got the same (negative) result. See ibid. But the technician lied in his report, claiming that one of the pills was "found to be ... positive for the probable presence of ecstasy." Id., at 92. Similarly, one of the arresting officers wrote in his report that "[f]rom [his] training and experience, [he] knew the pills to be ecstasy." Id., at 91. On the basis of those statements, another officer swore out a criminal complaint against Manuel, charging him with unlawful possession of a controlled substance. See id., at 52-53.
Manuel was brought before a county court judge later that day for a determination of whether there was probable cause for the charge, as necessary for further detention. See Gerstein, 420 U.S., at 114, 95 S.Ct. 854 (requiring a judicial finding of probable cause following a warrantless arrest to impose any significant pretrial restraint on liberty); Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 725, § 5/109-1 (West 2010) (implementing that constitutional rule). The judge relied exclusively on the criminal complaint-which in turn relied exclusively on the police department's fabrications-to support a finding of probable cause. Based on that determination, he sent Manuel to the county jail to await trial. In the somewhat obscure legal lingo of this case, Manuel's subsequent detention was thus pursuant to "legal process"-because it followed from, and was authorized by, the judge's probable-cause determination.
While Manuel sat in jail, the Illinois police laboratory reexamined the seized pills, and on April 1, it issued a report concluding (just as the prior two tests had) that they contained no controlled substances. See App. 51. But for unknown reasons, the prosecution-and, critically for this case, Manuel's detention-continued for more than another month. Only on May 4 did an Assistant State's Attorney seek dismissal of the drug charge. See id., at 48, 101. The County Court immediately granted the request, and Manuel was released the next day. In all, he had spent 48 days in pretrial detention.
On April 22, 2013, Manuel brought this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Joliet and several of its police officers (collectively, the City). Section 1983 creates a "species of tort liability," Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 417, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976), for "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution," § 1983. Manuel's complaint alleged that the City violated his Fourth Amendment rights in two ways-first by arresting him at the roadside without any reason, and next by "detaining him in police custody" for almost seven weeks based entirely on made-up evidence. See App. 79-80.
The District Court dismissed Manuel's suit. See 2014 WL 551626 (N.D.Ill., Feb. 12, 2014). The court first held that the applicable two-year statute of limitations barred Manuel's claim for unlawful arrest, because more than two years had elapsed between the date of his arrest (March 18, 2011) and the filing of his complaint (April 22, 2013). But the court relied on another basis in rejecting Manuel's challenge to his subsequent detention (which stretched from March 18 to May 5, 2011). Binding Circuit precedent, the District Court explained, made clear that pretrial detention following the start of legal process could not give rise to a Fourth Amendment claim. See id., at *1 (citing, e.g., Newsome v. McCabe, 256 F.3d 747, 750 (C.A.7 2001) ). According to that line of decisions, a § 1983 plaintiff challenging such detention must allege a breach of the Due Process Clause-and must show, to recover on that theory, that state law fails to provide an adequate remedy. See 2014 WL 551626, at *1-*2. Because Manuel's complaint rested solely on the Fourth Amendment-and because, in any event, Illinois's remedies were robust enough to preclude the due process avenue-the District Court found that Manuel had no way to proceed. See ibid .
The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Manuel's claim for unlawful detention (the only part of the District Court's decision Manuel appealed). See 590 Fed.Appx. 641 (2015). Invoking its prior caselaw, the Court of Appeals reiterated that such claims could not be brought under the Fourth Amendment. Once a person is detained pursuant to legal process, the court stated, "the Fourth Amendment falls out of the picture and the detainee's claim that the detention is improper becomes [one of] due process." Id., at 643-644 (quoting Llovet v. Chicago, 761 F.3d 759, 763 (C.A.7 2014) ). And again: "When, after the arrest[,] a person is not let go when he should be, the Fourth Amendment gives way to the due process clause as a basis for challenging his detention." 590 Fed.Appx., at 643 (quoting Llovet, 761 F.3d, at 764 ). So the Seventh Circuit held that Manuel's complaint, in alleging only a Fourth Amendment violation, rested on the wrong part of the Constitution: A person detained following the onset of legal process could at most (although, the court agreed, not in Illinois) challenge his pretrial confinement via the Due Process Clause. See 590 Fed.Appx., at 643-644.
The Seventh Circuit recognized that its position makes it an outlier among the Courts of Appeals, with ten others taking the opposite view. See id., at 643 ; Hernandez-Cuevas v. Taylor, 723 F.3d 91, 99 (C.A.1 2013) ("[T]here is now broad consensus among the circuits that the Fourth Amendment right to be free from seizure but upon probable cause extends through the pretrial period"). Still, the court decided, Manuel had failed to offer a sufficient reason for overturning settled Circuit precedent; his argument, albeit "strong," was "better left for the Supreme Court." 590 Fed.Appx., at 643.
On cue, we granted certiorari. 577 U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 890, 193 L.Ed.2d 783 (2016).
II
The Fourth Amendment protects "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons ... against unreasonable ... seizures." Manuel's complaint seeks just that protection. Government officials, it recounts, detained-which is to say, "seiz[ed]"-Manuel for 48 days following his arrest. See App. 79-80; Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249, 254, 127 S.Ct. 2400, 168 L.Ed.2d 132 (2007) ("A person is seized" whenever officials "restrain[ ] his freedom of movement" such that he is "not free to leave"). And that detention was "unreasonable," the complaint continues, because it was based solely on false evidence, rather than supported by probable cause. See App. 79-80; Bailey v. United States, 568 U.S. 186, 192, 133 S.Ct. 1031, 185 L.Ed.2d 19 (2013) ( "[T]he general rule [is] that Fourth Amendment seizures are 'reasonable' only if based on probable cause to believe that the individual has committed a crime"). By their respective terms, then, Manuel's claim fits the Fourth Amendment, and the Fourth Amendment fits Manuel's claim, as hand in glove.
This Court decided some four decades ago that a claim challenging pretrial detention fell within the scope of the Fourth Amendment. In Gerstein, two persons arrested without a warrant brought a § 1983 suit complaining that they had been held in custody for "a substantial period solely on the decision of a prosecutor." 420 U.S., at 106, 95 S.Ct. 854. The Court looked to the Fourth Amendment to analyze-and uphold-their claim that such a pretrial restraint on liberty is unlawful unless a judge (or grand jury) first makes a reliable finding of probable cause. See id., at 114, 117, n. 19, 95 S.Ct. 854. The Fourth Amendment, we began, establishes the minimum constitutional "standards and procedures" not just for arrest but also for ensuing "detention." Id., at 111, 95 S.Ct. 854. In choosing that Amendment "as the rationale for decision," the Court responded to a concurring Justice's view that the Due Process Clause offered the better framework: The Fourth Amendment, the majority countered, was "tailored explicitly for the criminal justice system, and it[ ] always has been thought to define" the appropriate process "for seizures of person[s] ... in criminal cases, including the detention of suspects pending trial." Id., at 125, n. 27, 95 S.Ct. 854. That Amendment, standing alone, guaranteed "a fair and reliable determination of probable cause as a condition for any significant pretrial restraint." Id., at 125, 95 S.Ct. 854. Accordingly, those detained prior to trial without such a finding could appeal to "the Fourth Amendment's protection against unfounded invasions of liberty." Id., at 112, 95 S.Ct. 854 ; see id., at 114, 95 S.Ct. 854.
And so too, a later decision indicates, those objecting to a pretrial deprivation of liberty may invoke the Fourth Amendment when (as here) that deprivation occurs after legal process commences. The § 1983 plaintiff in Albright complained of various pretrial restraints imposed after a court found probable cause to issue an arrest warrant, and then bind him over for trial, based on a policeman's unfounded charges. See 510 U.S., at 268-269, 114 S.Ct. 807 (plurality opinion). For uncertain reasons, Albright ignored the Fourth Amendment in drafting his complaint; instead, he alleged that the defendant officer had infringed his substantive due process rights. This Court rejected that claim, with five Justices in two opinions remitting Albright to the Fourth Amendment. See id., at 271, 114 S.Ct. 807 (plurality opinion) ("We hold that it is the Fourth Amendment ... under which [his] claim must be judged"); id., at 290, 114 S.Ct. 807 (Souter, J., concurring in judgment) ("[I]njuries like those [he] alleges are cognizable in § 1983 claims founded upon ... the Fourth Amendment"). "The Framers," the plurality wrote, "considered the matter of pretrial deprivations of liberty and drafted the Fourth Amendment to address it." Id., at 274, 114 S.Ct. 807. That the deprivations at issue were pursuant to legal process made no difference, given that they were (allegedly) unsupported by probable cause; indeed, neither of the two opinions so much as mentioned that procedural circumstance. Relying on Gerstein, the plurality stated that the Fourth Amendment remained the "relevan[t]" constitutional provision to assess the "deprivations of liberty"-most notably, pretrial detention-"that go hand in hand with criminal prosecutions." 510 U.S., at 274, 114 S.Ct. 807 ; see id., at 290, 114 S.Ct. 807 (Souter, J., concurring in judgment) ("[R]ules of recovery for such harms have naturally coalesced under the Fourth Amendment").
As reflected in Albright 's tracking of Gerstein 's analysis, pretrial detention can violate the Fourth Amendment not only when it precedes, but also when it follows, the start of legal process in a criminal case. The Fourth Amendment prohibits government officials from detaining a person in the absence of probable cause. See supra, at 917. That can happen when the police hold someone without any reason before the formal onset of a criminal proceeding. But it also can occur when legal process itself goes wrong-when, for example, a judge's probable-cause determination is predicated solely on a police officer's false statements. Then, too, a person is confined without constitutionally adequate justification. Legal process has gone forward, but it has done nothing to satisfy the Fourth Amendment's probable-cause requirement. And for that reason, it cannot extinguish the detainee's Fourth Amendment claim-or somehow, as the Seventh Circuit has held, convert that claim into one founded on the Due Process Clause. See 590 Fed.Appx., at 643-644. If the complaint is that a form of legal process resulted in pretrial detention unsupported by probable cause, then the right allegedly infringed lies in the Fourth Amendment.
For that reason, and contrary to the Seventh Circuit's view, Manuel stated a Fourth Amendment claim when he sought relief not merely for his (pre-legal-process) arrest, but also for his (post-legal-process) pretrial detention. Consider again the facts alleged in this case. Police officers initially arrested Manuel without probable cause, based solely on his possession of pills that had field tested negative for an illegal substance. So (putting timeliness issues aside) Manuel could bring a claim for wrongful arrest under the Fourth Amendment. And the same is true (again, disregarding timeliness) as to a claim for wrongful detention-because Manuel's subsequent weeks in custody were also unsupported by probable cause, and so also constitutionally unreasonable. No evidence of Manuel's criminality had come to light in between the roadside arrest and the County Court proceeding initiating legal process; to the contrary, yet another test of Manuel's pills had come back negative in that period. All that the judge had before him were police fabrications about the pills' content. The judge's order holding Manuel for trial therefore lacked any proper basis. And that means Manuel's ensuing pretrial detention, no less than his original arrest, violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Or put just a bit differently: Legal process did not expunge Manuel's Fourth Amendment claim because the process he received failed to establish what that Amendment makes essential for pretrial detention-probable cause to believe he committed a crime.
III
Our holding-that the Fourth Amendment governs a claim for unlawful pretrial detention even beyond the start of legal process-does not exhaust the disputed legal issues in this case. It addresses only the threshold inquiry in a § 1983 suit, which requires courts to "identify the specific constitutional right" at issue. Albright, 510 U.S., at 271, 114 S.Ct. 807. After pinpointing that right, courts still must determine the elements of, and rules associated with, an action seeking damages for its violation. See, e.g., Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 257-258, 98 S.Ct. 1042, 55 L.Ed.2d 252 (1978). Here, the parties particularly disagree over the accrual date of Manuel's Fourth Amendment claim-that is, the date on which the applicable two-year statute of limitations began to run. The timeliness of Manuel's suit hinges on the choice between their proposed dates. But with the following brief comments, we remand that issue to the court below.
In defining the contours and prerequisites of a § 1983 claim, including its rule of accrual, courts are to look first to the common law of torts. See ibid. (explaining that tort principles "provide the appropriate starting point" in specifying the conditions for recovery under § 1983 ); Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 388-390, 127 S.Ct. 1091, 166 L.Ed.2d 973 (2007) (same for accrual dates in particular). Sometimes, that review of common law will lead a court to adopt wholesale the rules that would apply in a suit involving the most analogous tort. See id., at 388-390, 127 S.Ct. 1091 ;
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 483-487, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). But not always. Common-law principles are meant to guide rather than to control the definition of § 1983 claims, serving "more as a source of inspired examples than of prefabricated components." Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 258, 126 S.Ct. 1695, 164 L.Ed.2d 441 (2006) ; see Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356, 366, 132 S.Ct. 1497, 182 L.Ed.2d 593 (2012) (noting that " § 1983 is [not] simply a federalized amalgamation of pre-existing common-law claims"). In applying, selecting among, or adjusting common-law approaches, courts must closely attend to the values and purposes of the constitutional right at issue.
With these precepts as backdrop, Manuel and the City offer competing views about what accrual rule should govern a § 1983 suit challenging post-legal-process pretrial detention. According to Manuel, that Fourth Amendment claim accrues only upon the dismissal of criminal charges-here, on May 4, 2011, less than two years before he brought his suit. See Reply Brief 2; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 24-25, n. 16 (taking the same position). Relying on this Court's caselaw, Manuel analogizes his claim to the common-law tort of malicious prosecution. See Reply Brief 9; Wallace, 549 U.S., at 389-390, 127 S.Ct. 1091. An element of that tort is the "termination of the ... proceeding in favor of the accused"; and accordingly, the statute of limitations does not start to run until that termination takes place. Heck, 512 U.S., at 484, 489, 114 S.Ct. 2364. Manuel argues that following the same rule in suits like his will avoid "conflicting resolutions" in § 1983 litigation and criminal proceedings by "preclud[ing] the possibility of the claimant succeeding in the tort action after having been convicted in the underlying criminal prosecution." Id., at 484, 486, 114 S.Ct. 2364 ; see Reply Brief 10-11; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 24-25, n. 16. In support of Manuel's position, all but two of the ten Courts of Appeals that have recognized a Fourth Amendment claim like his have incorporated a "favorable termination" element and so pegged the statute of limitations to the dismissal of the criminal case. See n. 4, supra . That means in the great majority of Circuits, Manuel's claim would be timely.
The City, however, contends that any such Fourth Amendment claim accrues (and the limitations period starts to run) on the date of the initiation of legal process-here, on March 18, 2011, more than two years before Manuel filed suit. See Brief for Respondents 33. According to the City, the most analogous tort to Manuel's constitutional claim is not malicious prosecution but false arrest, which accrues when legal process commences. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 47; Wallace, 549 U.S., at 389, 127 S.Ct. 1091 (noting accrual rule for false arrest suits). And even if malicious prosecution were the better comparison, the City continues, a court should decline to adopt that tort's favorable-termination element and associated accrual rule in adjudicating a § 1983 claim involving pretrial detention. That element, the City argues, "make[s] little sense" in this context because "the Fourth Amendment is concerned not with the outcome of a prosecution, but with the legality of searches and seizures." Brief for Respondents 16. And finally, the City contends that Manuel forfeited an alternative theory for treating his date of release as the date of accrual: to wit, that his pretrial detention "constitute[d] a continuing Fourth Amendment violation," each day of which triggered the statute of limitations anew.
Id., at 29, and n. 6; see Tr. of Oral Arg. 36; see also Albright, 510 U.S., at 280, 114 S.Ct. 807 (GINSBURG, J., concurring) (propounding a similar view). So Manuel, the City concludes, lost the opportunity to recover for his pretrial detention by waiting too long to file suit.
We leave consideration of this dispute to the Court of Appeals. "[W]e are a court of review, not of first view." Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 718, n. 7, 125 S.Ct. 2113, 161 L.Ed.2d 1020 (2005). Because the Seventh Circuit wrongly held that Manuel lacked any Fourth Amendment claim once legal process began, the court never addressed the elements of, or rules applicable to, such a claim. And in particular, the court never confronted the accrual issue that the parties contest here. On remand, the Court of Appeals should decide that question, unless it finds that the City has previously waived its timeliness argument. See Reply to Brief in Opposition 1-2 (addressing the possibility of waiver); Tr. of Oral Arg. 40-44 (same). And so too, the court may consider any other still-live issues relating to the contours of Manuel's Fourth Amendment claim for unlawful pretrial detention.
For the reasons stated, we reverse the judgment of the Seventh Circuit and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Because we here review an order dismissing Manuel's suit, we accept as true all the factual allegations in his complaint. See, e.g., Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 164, 113 S.Ct. 1160, 122 L.Ed.2d 517 (1993).
Although not addressed in Manuel's complaint, the police department's alleged fabrications did not stop at this initial hearing on probable cause. About two weeks later, on March 30, a grand jury indicted Manuel based on similar false evidence: testimony from one of the arresting officers that "[t]he pills field tested positive" for ecstasy. App. 96 (grand jury minutes).
Manuel's allegation of unlawful detention concerns only the period after the onset of legal process-here meaning, again, after the County Court found probable cause that he had committed a crime. See supra, at 915 - 916. The police also held Manuel in custody for several hours between his warrantless arrest and his first appearance in court. But throughout this litigation, Manuel has treated that short period as part and parcel of the initial unlawful arrest. See, e.g., Reply Brief 1.
See also Singer v. Fulton County Sheriff, 63 F.3d 110, 114-118 (C.A.2 1995) ; McKenna v. Philadelphia, 582 F.3d 447, 461 (C.A.3 2009) ; Lambert v. Williams, 223 F.3d 257, 260-262 (C.A.4 2000) ; Castellano v. Fragozo, 352 F.3d 939, 953-954, 959-960 (C.A.5 2003) (en banc); Sykes v. Anderson, 625 F.3d 294, 308-309 (C.A.6 2010) ; Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119, 1126-1127 (C.A.9 2002) ; Wilkins v. De -Reyes, 528 F.3d 790, 797-799 (C.A.10 2008) ; Whiting v. Traylor, 85 F.3d 581, 584-586 (C.A.11 1996) ; Pitt v. District of Columbia, 491 F.3d 494, 510-511 (C.A.D.C.2007).
The Court repeated the same idea in a follow-on decision to Gerstein. In County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 47, 111 S.Ct. 1661, 114 L.Ed.2d 49 (1991), we considered how quickly a jurisdiction must provide the probable-cause determination that Gerstein demanded "as a prerequisite to an extended pretrial detention." In holding that the decision should occur within 48 hours of an arrest, the majority understood its "task [as] articulat[ing] more clearly the boundaries of what is permissible under the Fourth Amendment." 500 U.S., at 56, 111 S.Ct. 1661. In arguing for still greater speed, the principal dissent invoked the original meaning of "the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of 'unreasonable seizures,' insofar as it applies to seizure of the person." Id., at 60, 111 S.Ct. 1661 (Scalia, J., dissenting). The difference between the two opinions was significant, but the commonality still more so: All Justices agreed that the Fourth Amendment provides the appropriate lens through which to view a claim involving pretrial detention.
The opposite view would suggest an untenable result: that a person arrested pursuant to a warrant could not bring a Fourth Amendment claim challenging the reasonableness of even his arrest, let alone any subsequent detention. An arrest warrant, after all, is a way of initiating legal process, in which a magistrate finds probable cause that a person committed a crime. See Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 389, 127 S.Ct. 1091, 166 L.Ed.2d 973 (2007) (explaining that the seizure of a person was "without legal process" because police officers "did not have a warrant for his arrest"); W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton, & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on Law of Torts § 119, pp. 871, 886 (5th ed. 1984) (similar). If legal process is the cut-off point for the Fourth Amendment, then someone arrested (as well as later held) under a warrant procured through false testimony would have to look to the Due Process Clause for relief. But that runs counter to our caselaw. See, e.g., Whiteley v. Warden, Wyo. State Penitentiary, 401 U.S. 560, 568-569, 91 S.Ct. 1031, 28 L.Ed.2d 306 (1971) (holding that an arrest violated the Fourth Amendment because a magistrate's warrant was not backed by probable cause). And if the Seventh Circuit would reply that arrest warrants are somehow different-that there is legal process and then again there is legal process -the next (and in our view unanswerable) question would be why.
Even the City no longer appears to contest that conclusion. On multiple occasions during oral argument in this Court, the City agreed that "a Fourth Amendment right ... survive[d] the initiation of process" at the hearing in which the county judge found probable cause and ordered detention. Tr. of Oral Arg. 31; see id., at 33 (concurring with the statement that "once [an] individual is brought ... before a magistrate, and the magistrate using the same bad evidence says, stay here in jail ... until we get to trial, that that period is a violation of the Fourth Amendment"); id., at 51 (stating that a detainee has "a Fourth Amendment claim" if "misstatements at [such a probable-cause hearing] led to ongoing pretrial seizure").
The dissent goes some way toward claiming that a different kind of pretrial legal process-a grand jury indictment or preliminary examination-does expunge such a Fourth Amendment claim. See post, at 927, n. 4 (opinion of ALITO, J.) (raising but "not decid[ing] that question"); post, at 927 - 928 (suggesting an answer nonetheless). The effect of that view would be to cut off Manuel's claim on the date of his grand jury indictment (March 30)-even though that indictment (like the County Court's probable-cause proceeding) was entirely based on false testimony and even though Manuel remained in detention for 36 days longer. See n. 2, supra. Or said otherwise-even though the legal process he received failed to establish the probable cause necessary for his continued confinement. We can see no principled reason to draw that line. Nothing in the nature of the legal proceeding establishing probable cause makes a difference for purposes of the Fourth Amendment: Whatever its precise form, if the proceeding is tainted-as here, by fabricated evidence-and the result is that probable cause is lacking, then the ensuing pretrial detention violates the confined person's Fourth Amendment rights, for all the reasons we have stated. By contrast (and contrary to the dissent's suggestion, see post, at 927, n. 3), once a trial has occurred, the Fourth Amendment drops out: A person challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support both a conviction and any ensuing incarceration does so under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (invalidating a conviction under the Due Process Clause when "the record evidence could [not] reasonably support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt"); Thompson v. Louisville, 362 U.S. 199, 204, 80 S.Ct. 624, 4 L.Ed.2d 654 (1960) (striking a conviction under the same provision when "the record [wa]s entirely lacking in evidence" of guilt-such that it could not even establish probable cause). Gerstein and Albright, as already suggested, both reflected and recognized that constitutional division of labor. See supra, at 917 - 918. In their words, the Framers "drafted the Fourth Amendment" to address "the matter of pretrial deprivations of liberty," Albright, 510 U.S., at 274, 114 S.Ct. 807 (emphasis added), and the Amendment thus provides "standards and procedures" for "the detention of suspects pending trial, " Gerstein, 420 U.S., at 125, n. 27, 95 S.Ct. 854 (emphasis added).
The two exceptions-the Ninth and D.C. Circuits-have not yet weighed in on whether a Fourth Amendment claim like Manuel's includes a "favorable termination" element.
The dissent would have us address these questions anyway, on the ground that "the conflict on the malicious prosecution question was the centerpiece of Manuel's argument in favor of certiorari." Post, at 923. But the decision below did not implicate a "conflict on the malicious prosecution question"-because the Seventh Circuit, in holding that detainees like Manuel could not bring a Fourth Amendment claim at all, never considered whether (and, if so, how) that claim should resemble the malicious prosecution tort. Nor did Manuel's petition for certiorari suggest otherwise. The principal part of his question presented-mirroring the one and only Circuit split involving the decision below-reads as follows: "[W]hether an individual's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure continues beyond legal process." Pet. for Cert. i. That is exactly the issue we have resolved. The rest of Manuel's question did indeed express a view as to what would follow from an affirmative answer ("so as to allow a malicious prosecution claim"). Ibid. (And as the dissent notes, the Seventh Circuit recounted that he made the same argument in that court. See post, at 923 -924, n. 1.) But as to that secondary issue, we think (for all the reasons just stated) that Manuel jumped the gun. See supra, at 920 - 922. And contra the dissent, his doing so provides no warrant for our doing so too.
* * *
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Warren
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns the Louisiana direct action statute. This Court has today had occasion to test that statute against certain claims of unconstitutionality, Watson v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp., post, p. 66. Questions are raised here involving the diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts in cases arising under the statute.
Respondent, a citizen of Louisiana, was injured in an automobile accident at Shreveport, Louisiana, allegedly because of the negligence of Mrs. S. W. Bowen, also a Louisiana citizen. Petitioner, an Illinois corporation, had issued a public liability policy to Mr. Bowen insuring him and members of his household against claims arising from their negligent operation of the family car. The policy was applied for, issued, and delivered within the State of Louisiana. Petitioner was certificated to do business in Louisiana and had, as a legal prerequisite thereto, consented in writing to be sued directly for damages sustained in Louisiana accidents involving its policyholders.
The pertinent portion of the direct action statute provides:
“The injured person or his or her heirs, at their option, shall have a right of direct action against the insurer within the terms and limits of the policy in the parish where the accident or injury occurred or in the parish where the insured has his domicile, and said action may be brought against the insurer alone or against both the insured and the insurer, jointly and in solido.” La. Rev. Stat., Tit. 22, § 655. (Italics added.)
Pursuant to this provision, respondent brought this action against petitioner in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, alleging diversity of citizenship and damages in excess of $3,000. Mrs. Bowen, the alleged tortfeasor, was not made a codefendant. Petitioner moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of federal jurisdiction; the district judge granted the motion. 107 F. Supp. 299, 108 F. Supp. 157. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case to the District Court for trial, 201 F. 2d 500, one judge dissenting from the denial of a petition for rehearing. 202 F. 2d 744. From that decision, this Court granted certiorari. 347 U. S. 965. Thus, the sole question to be decided is whether the United States District Court in Louisiana has jurisdiction over this suit for damages brought under the direct action statute against the wrongdoer’s insurer alone, where diversity of citizenship exists between the complainant and the defendant insurer but not between the complainant and the wrongdoer.
Section 1332 (a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U. S. C. § 1332 (a), reads as follows:
“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $3,000 exclusive of interest and costs, and is between:
“(1) Citizens of different States . . . .”
It is petitioner’s contention that the “matter in controversy” here is the underlying tort liability of the alleged wrongdoer. If this were true, of course, no diversity of citizenship would exist between respondent and Mrs. Bowen, as the real party-defendant in interest. But the Louisiana courts have differentiated between actions brought by an injured party against the insurer alone and those brought against either the tortfeasor alone or together with the insurer. In the former action, the insurer is foreclosed from asserting defenses such as coverture, normally available to the tortfeasor. Edwards v. Royalty Indemnity Co., 182 La. 171, 161 So. 191. Similarly, the insurer is severely restricted in advancing technical defenses based upon the terms of the policy, such as a failure of notice, when the injured party brings a direct action. Jackson v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 211 La. 19, 29 So. 2d 177. While either type of action encompasses proof of the tortfeasor’s negligence, in the separate suit against the insurer a plaintiff must also establish liability under the policy. The Louisiana courts have characterized the statute as creating a separate and distinct cause of action against the insurer which an injured party may elect in lieu of his action against the tortfeasor. West v. Monroe Bakery, 217 La. 189, 46 So. 2d 122; Jackson v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., supra.
Petitioner is therefore not merely a nominal defendant but is the real party in interest here. This conclusion to disregard the tortfeasor’s citizenship in the instant case for purposes of federal jurisdiction is fortified by cases honoring the states’ characterization of a guardian or other fiduciary as determinative of the real party in interest in federal litigation. New Orleans v. Gaines’s Administrator, 138 U. S. 595; Mexican Central R. Co. v. Eckman, 187 U. S. 429. There is even greater justification for disregarding the tortfeasor’s citizenship here than for disregarding the citizenship of a beneficiary since the insurer — -unlike a fiduciary — has a direct financial interest in the outcome of this litigation.
Petitioner next asserts that the tortfeasor is an indispensable party to this litigation, and that failure to join her as a defendant deprives the federal court of jurisdiction: Clearly under the Louisiana statute and practice the argument has no merit. And the circumstances which have led the federal courts to findings of indispensability are not present here. In Shields v. Barrow, 17 How. 130, 139, indispensable parties were defined as “Persons who not only have an interest in the controversy, but an interest of such a nature that a final decree cannot be made without either affecting that interest, or leaving the controversy in such a condition that its final termination may be wholly inconsistent with equity and good conscience.” The tortfeasor in a Louisiana direct action against the insurer is not such a person. The state has created an optional right to proceed directly against the insurer; by bringing the action against petitioner, respondent has apparently abandoned her action against the tortfeasor. See Miller v. Commercial Standard Ins. Co., 199 La. 515, 526, 6 So. 2d 646, 649. Thus a complete disposition of the entire claim may be made in this one action, without injustice to any of the participants.
Finally, petitioner contends that the federal courts should decline, as a matter of discretion, to exercise their jurisdiction over suits against an insurer alone. This argument is based upon the differing standards of review on appeal of a jury verdict in the Louisiana and federal courts. Petitioner relies upon Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U. S. 315, as authority for the suggested discretionary refusal to exercise jurisdiction. But in Burjord, jurisdiction was declined to avoid a potential interference with a state’s administrative policy-making process, a consideration not present here. Moreover, traditional equitable authority, not available here, was relied upon to justify the holding.
The language of the congressional grant of jurisdiction to the lower courts, 28 U. S. C. § 1332 (a), is clear, and this case seems to us to fall squarely within the provision. In Louisiana the practice of bringing direct actions in the federal courts has long been recognized. See, e. g., New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Soileau, 167 F. 2d 767 (C. A. 5th Cir.), cert. denied, 335 U. S. 822; Bankers Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Green, 181 F. 2d 1 (C. A. 5th Cir.); Belanger v. Great American Ind. Co., 188 F. 2d 196 (C. A. 5th Cir.). Neither federal nor Louisiana law suggests any reason to disturb this practice. The decision of the Court of Appeals is
Ajjirmed.
See also McDowell v. National Surety Corp., 68 So. 2d 189, appeal dismissed, 347 U. S. 995.
Two proposals for compulsory joinder of insured and insurer as party-defendants have failed of passage in the Louisiana Legislature within recent years. See La. Senate Bill 73, 1952 Session; La. House Bill 600, 1954 Session.
See also 3 Moore’s Federal Practice (2d ed. 1948), ¶ 19.07 et seq.; Note, Indispensable Parties in the Federal Courts, 65 Harv. L. Rev. 1050 (1952).
No case has been cited, although there has been nearly a quarter-century of experience under the direct action statute, where an injured party has attempted to bring suit against the tortfeasor following an unsuccessful suit against the insurer in either state or federal courts.
Appellate review in the federal courts is, of course, limited ultimately by the Seventh Amendment. Parsons v. Bedford, Breedlove & Robeson, 3 Pet. 433. In Louisiana, appellate review in civil cases extends to both matters of law and fact. See La. Const., Art. 7, §§ 10, 29.
See also Pennsylvania v. Williams, 294 U. S. 176; Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Huffman, 319 U. S. 293; Alabama Public Service Commission v. Southern R. Co., 341 U. S. 341, cited in the dissenting opinion below. See Meredith v. Winter Haven, 320 U. S. 228, 234, 236, 237.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 32 (a) of the Trading with the Enemy Act (added by 60 Stat. 50, as amended, 50 U. S. C. App. § 32 (a)) authorizes the return in certain circumstances of property vested by the United States during World War II. Under that provision:
“The President, or such officer or agency as he may designate, may return any property or interest vested in or transferred to the Alien Property Custodian (other than any property or interest acquired by the United States prior to December 18, 1941), or the net proceeds thereof, whenever the President or such officer or agency shall determine . .
that the following conditions are met: (1) the claimant was the owner of the property in question prior to its vesting, or is the legal representative or successor in interest of the owner; (2) he was not a member of any of several excluded classes, summarized in the margin; (3) the property was not used pursuant to a “cloaking” arrangement, whereby the interest of an ineligible person in the property was concealed; (4) there is no danger of liability in respect of the property attaching to the Custodian under thé renegotiation statutes; and (5) “such return is in the interest of the United States.”
The particular provision involved in this case is paragraph 2 (D) of § 32 (a), which makes ineligible citizens of certain enemy countries who were present in those countries after the onset of hostilities, and its first proviso (added by 60 Stat. 930), which exempts from that ineligibility certain persons who were the victims of persecution. The question for decision is whether the District Court had jurisdiction to review a determination of the Director, Office of Alien Property, sanctioned by the respondent Attorney General, holding this proviso inapplicable to the facts presented by the petitioner's claim.
Petitioner, a national and resident of Germany at all material times, duly filed with the Attorney General a claim under the § 32 (a) (2) (D) proviso for the return of the proceeds of certain property vested by the respondent’s predecessors in 1942, 1947, and 1948, asserting an interest therein of some $68,500. He alleged that throughout the relevant period he, as an “anti-Nazi,” claimed to have been a discriminated-against political group, had been deprived of full rights of German citizenship, in that he had been denied admission to the practice of law. A Hearing Examiner recommended allowance of the claim, but his recommendation was rejected by the Director on the ground that petitioner was ineligible for relief under the §32(a)(2)(D) proviso. The Attorney General refused review. Petitioner then sued in the District Court to review the administrative determination, claiming it to have been arbitrary and illegal. The court denied the Government’s motion to dismiss the complaint for want of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding, in line with its own prior course of decisions, that judicial review of the administrative disposition was precluded by § 7 (c) of the Trading with the Enemy Act. 106 U. S. App. D. C. 8, 268 F. 2d 584. Because of the importance of the question in the proper administration of the Trading with the Enemy Act we brought the case here. 361 U. S. 874. For reasons given hereafter we affirm the judgment below.
Petitioner’s principal reliance is upon § 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act which provides for judicial review of agency action “[ejxeept so far as (1) statutes preclude judicial review or (2) agency action is by law committed to agency discretion.” 60 Stat. 243, 5 U. S. C. § 1009. We find that both such limitations are applicable here.
Section 7 (c) of the Act provides:
“The sole relief and remedy of any person having any claim to any money or other property heretofore or hereafter . . . transferred ... to the Alien Property Custodian . . . shall be that provided by the terms of this Act . . . .” 40 Stat. 1021.
We perceive no basis for petitioner’s contention that § 7 (c) limits only the remedies available to nonenemies under § 9 (a), or for construing § 7 (c), passed in 1918, as not being applicable to § 32, passed in 1946. The language of the section is “all-inclusive,” Becker Steel Co. v. Cummings, 296 U. S. 74, 79, and it speaks to the future as well as the past. See also Central Union Trust Co. v. Garvan, 254 U. S. 554, 568.
The only express provision in the Trading with the Enemy Act for recourse to the courts by those claiming the return of property vested during World War II is that contained in § 9 (a). That section, however, is applicable only to persons not enemies or allies of enemies as defined in the relevant statutes, and hence is not available to this petitioner, an enemy national. While § 9 (c) also entitles certain classes of “enemies” enumerated in § 9 (b) similarly to sue in the courts to recover vested property whose return is authorized under § 9 (b), those sections apply only to World War I vestings. See Feyerabend v. McGrath, 89 U. S. App. D. C. 33, 189 F. 2d 694; cf. Markham v. Cabell, 326 U. S. 404. Although § 32 (a) broadened the categories of those having an enemy status who were eligible for the return of property vested during World War II, unlike § 9 (c) it contains no express provision for judicial relief in respect of such claims.
The question then is whether a right to such relief can fairly be implied, for we shall assume that if such be the case the requirements of § 7 (c) would be satisfied. The terms of § 32 and its legislative history speak strongly against any such implication. The absence in § 32 of any provision for judicial relief respecting “enemy” claims for the return of property vested during World War II stands in sharp contrast to the presence of such a provision in § 9 (c) with iespect to certain enemy claims arising out of World War I vestings. The original version of what ultimately became § 32 did contain a provision for judicial relief comparable to that in § 9 (c), not applicable, however, to property of enemy national-residents, as well as a “sole relief and remedy” provision comparable to that in § 7 (c) — H. R. 4840, § 32 (b), (c), in Hearings before Subcommittee No. 1 of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives on H. R. 4840, 78th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 1-2 — but the subsequent draft of the bill, substantially in the form as finally enacted in March 1946 (60 Stat. 50), omitted both provisions. See H. R. 3750, in Hearings before Subcommittee No. 1 of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, on H. R. 3750, 79th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 1-2. While the legislative record contains no explanation of these omissions, the committee hearings on H. R. 3750 and those on subsequent amendments to the Act preclude the view that it was contemplated that persons having an enemy status, still less those who were nationals and residents of enemy countries, should have the right of recourse to the courts with respect to administrative denials of return claims.
Speaking to H. R. 3750 at the initial committee hearing, Mr. Markham, then Alien Property Custodian, stated:
“I want to be sure I make this clear. Supposing a person applies to the Custodian for the return of a property, and for reasons that I deem appropriate under the bill I refuse to return the property. Now, we'will say this person would have to be a technical enemy, a Frenchman. He has no right to compel me to return it under this bill.” Hearings before Subcommittee No. 1 of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, on H. R. 3750, 79th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 14; see also pp. 11, 15.
And when a few months later, in August 1946, various amendments to the statute were considered and the §32 (a)(2)(D) proviso was added (60 Stat. 930), §32 came under severe criticism because of the absence of provisions for judicial relief in respect of return claims by technical enemies. See Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, on S. 2378 and S. 2039, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 57-59, 61, 62-63. The affording of such relief to enemy nationals was, however, at no time suggested. Congress, nevertheless, permitted § 32 to stand without enacting provisions for such judicial relief, and later proposed legislation of that character also failed of enactment. See S. 2544, 82d Cong., 2d Sess.; S. 34, 83d Cong., 1st Sess.
The conclusion which the history of § 32 impels is confirmed by the text of the section and other provisions of the Act. The absence of any provision for recourse to the courts in connection with § 32 (a) return claims contrasts strongly with the care that Congress took to provide for and limit judicial remedies with respect to other aspects of the section and other provisions of the Act. See, e. g., §§ 32 (d), 32 (e), 32 (f), 33, 34 (e), 34 (f), 34 (i). It is not of moment that these provisions concerned direct judicial relief, and not court review of denials of administrative relief. The point is that in this Act Congress was advertent to the role of courts, and an absence in any specific area of any kind of provision for judicial participation strongly indicates a legislative purpose that there be no such participation. Beyond this, the permissive terms in which the § 32 return provisions are drawn {ante, p. 667) persuasively indicate that their administration was committed entirely to the discretionary judgment of the Executive branch “without the intervention of the courts.” See Work v. Rives, 267 U. S. 175, 182.
Petitioner, however, relying on McGrath v. Kristensen, 340 U. S. 162, contends that even though he might not be entitled to judicial review of an adverse administrative determination on the merits of his claim, he is nonetheless entitled to such review on the issue of his eligibility under the § 32 (a) (2) (D) proviso, the only issue here involved. The Kristensen case, involving eligibility for suspension of deportation under § 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (66 Stat. 214, 8 U. S. C. § 1254), bears little resemblance to the situation involved here. See Heikkila v. Barber, 345 U. S. 229, 233; Switchmen’s Union v. National Mediation Board, 320 U. S. 297, 301. The structure of § 32 (a) does not permit of any such distinction in this case. Compare H. R. 4840, 78th Cong., 2d Sess., § 32 (a). Indeed, it is not certain whether petitioner’s theory of partial reviewability would apply only to the proviso with, which he is concerned; to all of paragraph (2), but only to that paragraph; or to paragraphs (1), (3), and (4) as well (seepp. 667-668, and notes 1-4, ante). None of these alternatives is acceptable. As to the first and second, no reason appears why either of these categories should be singled out for special treatment, while the third would make reviewable determinations which involve factors with which only the Executive Branch can satisfactorily deal. See, e. g., Hearings before Subcommittee No. 1 of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, on H. R. 3750, 79th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 4 (proof of pre-vesting ownership) ; Hearings before Subcommittee No. 1 of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, on H. R. 5089, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 37 (proof of “cloaking” arrangements). Beyond that, we think the congressional decision to spell out in some detail certain limitations on the power it was conferring on the Executive was not designed to bestow rights on claimants, arising out of an assertedly too-narrow reading by the Executive of the discretionary power given him. Rather we consider the specifications of paragraphs (1) through (4) as designed to provide guides for the Executive, thereby lessening the administrative burden of decision. See Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, on S. 2378 and S. 2039, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 19.
We conclude that the Trading with the Enemy Act excludes a judicial remedy in this instance, and that because of this, as well as because of the discretionary character of the administrative action involved, the Administrative Procedure Act, by its own terms (ante, p. 670), is unavailing to the petitioner.
Petitioner’s other contentions may be dealt with shortly. It is urged that judicial review is in any event available because the complaint, whose allegations as the case comes here must be taken as true, alleges that the administrative action was arbitrary and capricious. However, such conclusory allegations may not be read in isolation from the complaint’s factual allegations and the considerations set forth in the administrative decision upon which denial of this claim was based. See Reagan v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 154 U. S. 362, 401. So read, it appears that the complaint should properly be taken as charging no more than that the administrative action was erroneous. This is not a case in which it is charged either that an administrative official has refused or failed to exercise a statutory discretion, or that he has acted beyond the scope of his powers, where the availability of judicial review would be attended by quite different considerations than those controlling here. Cf., e. g., Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U. S. 260; Leedom v. Kyne, 358 U. S. 184.
Finally, petitioner’s reliance on the Declaratory Judgment Act carries him no further. Section 7 (c) of the Trading with the Enemy Act embraces that form of judicial relief as well as others. Additionally, the Declaratory Judgment Act is not an independent source of federal jurisdiction, Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 339 U. S. 667, 671; the availability of such relief presupposes the existence of a judicially remediable right. No such right exists here.
We conclude that the Court of Appeals correctly held that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over this action, and that its judgment must be
Affirmed.
§ 32 (a)(1): “That the person who has filed a notice of claim for return, in such form as the President or such officer or agency may prescribe, was the owner of such property or interest immediately prior to its vesting in or transfer to the Alien Property Custodian, or is the legal representative (whether or not appointed by a court in the United States), or successor in interest by inheritance, devise, bequest, or operation of law, of such owner . . .
§ 32 (a) (2) disqualifies: (A) the Governments of Germany, Japan, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Rumania; (B) corporations or associations organized under the laws of such nations; (C) persons voluntarily resident since Dec. 7, 1941, in any such nation, other than American citizens, certain diplomatic officers, or certain persecuted persons; (D) citizens of such nations, other than certain persecuted persons, who were present or engaged in business there between Dec. 7, 1941, and Mar. 8, 1946; and (E) certain foreign corporations or associations which, after Dec. 7, 1941, were controlled by persons falling within the above categories.
§ 32 (a) (3): “that the property or interest claimed, or the net proceeds of which are claimed, was not at any time after September 1, 1939, held or used, by or with the assent of the person who was the owner thereof immediately prior to vesting in or transfer to the Alien Property Custodian, pursuant to any arrangement to conceal any property or interest within the United States of any person ineligible to receive a return under subsection (a) (2) of this section . . . .”
§ 32 (a) (4): “that the Alien Property Custodian has no actual or potential liability under the Renegotiation Act or the Act of October 31, 1942 (56 Stat. 1013; 35 U. S. C. §§ 89-96), in respect of the property or interest or proceeds to be returned and that the claimant and his predecessor in interest, if any, have no actual or potential liability of any kind under the Renegotiation Act or the said Act of October 31, 1942; or in the alternative that the claimant has provided security or undertakings adequate to assure satisfaction of all such liabilities or that property or interest or proceeds to be retained by the Alien Property Custodian are adequate therefor . . . .”
§32 (a)(5).
§ 32 (a) (2) (D) disqualifies: “an individual who was at any time after December 7, 1941, a citizen or subject of Germany, Japan, Bulgaria, Hungary, or Rumania, and who on or after December 7, 1941, and prior to the date of the enactment of this section, was present (other than in the service of the United States) in the territory of such nation or in any territory occupied by the military or naval forces thereof or engaged in any business in any such territory: Provided, That notwithstanding the provisions of this subdivision return may be made to an individual who, as a consequence of any law, decree, or regulation of the nation of which he was then a citizen or subject, discriminating against political, racial, or religious groups, has at no time between December 7, 1941, and the time when such law, decree, or regulation was abrogated, enjoyed full rights of citizenship under the law of such nation . . .
On May 16, 1946, the President delegated his functions under § 32 (a) to the Alien Property Custodian. Exec. Order No. 9725, 11 Fed. Reg. 5381. On Oct. 15, 1946, the functions of the Custodian were transferred to the Attorney General. Exec. Order No.’ 9788, 11 Fed. Reg. 11981.
The Director stated the essence of his decision as follows: “Even if it were to be assumed that denial of a license to practice law deprived claimant of full rights of citizenship, his claim must be disallowed for the reason that he was not a member of a political, racial or religious group that was discriminated against. Anti-Nazis and non-Nazis do not constitute a political group.” (Citing past administrative decisions.)
Section 9 (a) authorizes “[a]ny person not an enemy or ally of enemy” (defined in § 2 of the Act, as supplemented by the First War Powers Act, 1941, 55 Stat. 838) to sue in equity for the return of vested property in which he claims an interest, either in the District Court for the District of Columbia or in the District Court of the district in which the claimant resides. 40 Stat. 419, as amended, 50 U. S. C. App. § 9 (a). As a German national and resident, petitioner is concededly an “enemy” under the statute.
At the same time, however, Congress enacted other provisions relating to judicial remedies, § 33 providing a statute of limitations on the commencement of suits under § 9, and § 34 providing for judicial review of administrative determinations on debt claims allowable out of vested property (60 Stat. 925). In connection with the former section there was spread in the Congressional Record, with the approval of the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, a letter from the Custodian stating his understanding that “this amendment is not to be regarded as implying that there is judicial review under section 32.” 92 Cong. Rec. 10486. Similarly, in connection with the enactment of § 32, a few months before, Congress had added to the Act § 20 providing for judicial review of administrative -allowances of counsel fees in return proceedings before the Custodian, 60 Stat. 54. See also S. Rep. No. 920, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 7.
More particularly with reference to the § 32 (a) (2) (D) proviso, neither the Committee hearings preceding its enactment, see Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, on S. 2378 and S. 2039, 79th Cong., 2d Sess.; cf. Hearings before Subcommittee No. 1 of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, on H. R. 5089, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., nor later Senate or House Reports referring to the proviso — see S. Rep. No. 784, 81st Cong., 1st Sess.; H. R. Rep. No. 2338, 81st Cong., 2d Sess.; S. Rep. No. 600, 82d Cong., 1st Sess.; Final Report of the Subcommittee on Administration of the Trading with the Enemy Act, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, pursuant to S. Res. 245, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., as amended by S. Res. 47, and S. Res. 120, 83d Cong., 1st Sess.— contain any suggestion that judicial review was contemplated in connection with such claims.
This section, which requires the Custodian to publish in the Federal Register a 30-day notice of his intention to return vested property to claimants other than residents of the United States or domestic corporations, provides that publication of such notice “shall confer no right of action upon any person to compel the return of any such property,” and further that any such notice may be revoked by the Custodian by appropriate publication in the Federal Register.
The fact that in a third-party suit affecting returned property, the courts must, in accordance with § 32 (e), determine, if relevant, the claimant’s eligibility under the § 32 (a) (2) (D) proviso, does not militate against this conclusion. First, it is far from clear that in such circumstances the doctrine of primary jurisdiction would not call for a referral of that issue to the Attorney General. Cf. United States Navigation Co. v. Cunard S. S. Co., 284 U. S. 474; Far East Conference v. United States, 342 U. S. 570; Maritime Board v. Isbrandtsen, 356 U. S. 481, 496-498. Moreover, even if necessity compelled judicial determination in suits between private parties of the issue ordinarily disposed of under § 32 (a), we would not be justified, in the context of the other provisions of this statute, in inferring from that a congressional willingness to have Executive determinations reviewed in court.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Ginsburg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns specially ordered products — heavy-duty trucks supplied by Volvo Trucks North America, Inc. (Volvo), and sold by franchised dealers through a competitive bidding process. In this process, the retail customer states its specifications and invites bids, generally from dealers franchised by different manufacturers. Only when a Volvo dealer’s bid proves successful does the dealer arrange to purchase the trucks, which Volvo then builds to meet the customer’s specifications.
Reeder-Simco GMC, Inc. (Reeder), a Volvo dealer located in Fort Smith, Arkansas, commenced suit against Volvo alleging that Reeder’s sales and profits declined because Volvo offered other dealers more favorable price concessions than those offered to Reeder. Reeder sought redress for its alleged losses under §2 of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 730, as amended by the Robinson-Patman Price Discrimination Act, 49 Stat. 1526,15 U. S. C. § 13 (Robinson-Patman Act or Act), and the Arkansas Franchise Practices Act, Ark. Code Ann. § 4-72-201 et seq. (2001). Reeder prevailed at trial and on appeal on both claims.
We granted review on the federal claim to resolve the question whether a manufacturer offering its dealers different wholesale prices may be held liable for price discrimination proscribed by Robinson-Patman, absent a showing that the manufacturer discriminated between dealers contemporaneously competing to resell to the same retail customer. While state law designed to protect franchisees may provide, and in this case has provided, a remedy for the dealer exposed to conduct of the kind Reeder alleged, the Robinson-Patman Act, we hold, does not reach the case Reeder presents. The Act centrally addresses price discrimination in cases involving competition between different purchasers for resale of the purchased product. Competition of that character ordinarily is not involved when a product subject to special order is sold through a customer-specific competitive bidding process.
I
Volvo manufactures heavy-duty trucks. Reeder sells new and used trucks, including heavy-duty trucks. 374 F. 3d 701, 704 (CA8 2004). Reeder became an authorized dealer of Volvo trucks in 1995, pursuant to a five-year franchise agreement that provided for automatic one-year extensions if Reeder met sales objectives set by Volvo. Ibid. Reeder generally sold Volvo’s trucks through a competitive bidding process. Ibid. In this process, the retail customer describes its specific product requirements and invites bids from several dealers it selects. The customer’s “decision to request a bid from a particular dealer or to allow a particular dealer to bid is controlled by such factors as an existing relationship, geography, reputation, and cold calling or other marketing strategies initiated by individual dealers.” Id., at 719 (Hansen, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
Once a Volvo dealer receives the customer's specifications, it turns to Volvo and requests a discount or “concession” off the wholesale price (set at 80% of the published retail price). Id., at 704. It is common practice in the industry for manufacturers to offer customer-specific discounts to their dealers. Ibid.; App. 334, 337. Volvo decides on a case-by-case basis whether to offer a discount and, if so, what the discount rate will be, , taking account of such factors as industry-wide demand and whether the retail customer has, historically, purchased a different brand of trucks. App. 348-349, 333-334. The dealer then uses the discount offered by Volvo in preparing its bid; it purchases trucks from Volvo only if and when the retail customer accepts its bid. Ibid.
Reeder was one of many Volvo dealers, each assigned by Volvo to a geographic territory. Reeder’s territory encompassed ten counties in Arkansas and two in Oklahoma. 374 F. 3d, at 709. Although nothing prohibits a Volvo dealer from bidding outside its territory, ibid., Reeder rarely bid against another Volvo dealer, see id., at 705; 5 App. in No. 02-2462 (CA8), pp. 1621-1622 (hereinafter C. A. App.). In the atypical event that the same retail customer solicited a bid from more than one Volvo dealer, Volvo’s stated policy was to provide the same price concession to each dealer competing head to head for the same sale. 4 id., at 1161-1162; 5 id., at 1619, 1621.
In 1997, Volvo announced a program it called “Volvo Vision,” in which the company addressed problems it faced in the market for heavy trucks, among them, the company’s assessment that it had too many dealers. Volvo projected enlarging the size of its dealers’ markets and reducing the number of dealers from 146 to 75. 374 F. 3d, at 705. Coincidentally, Reeder learned that Volvo had given another dealer a price concession greater than the concessions Reeder typically received, and “Reeder came to suspect it was one of the dealers Volvo sought to eliminate.” Ibid. Reeder filed suit against Volvo in February 2000, alleging losses attributable to Volvo’s violation of the Arkansas Franchise Practices Act and the Robinson-Patman Act.
At trial, Reeder’s vice-president, William E. Heck, acknowledged that Volvo’s policy was to offer equal concessions to Volvo dealers bidding against one another for a particular contract, but he contended that the policy “was not executed.” 4 C. A. App. 1162. Reeder presented evidence concerning two instances over the five-year course of its authorized dealership when Reeder bid against other Volvo dealers for a particular sale. 374 F. 3d, at 705, 708-709. One of the two instances involved Reeder’s bid on a sale to Tommy Davidson Trucking. 4 C. A. App. 1267-1268. Volvo initially offered Reeder a concession of 17%, which Volvo, unprompted, increased to 18.1% and then, one week later, to 18.9%, to match the concession Volvo had offered to another of its dealers. 5 id., at 1268-1272. Neither dealer won the bid. Id., at 1272. The other instance involved Hiland Dairy, which solicited bids from both Reeder and Southwest Missouri Truck Center. Id., at 1626-1627. Per its written policy, Volvo offered the two dealers the same concession, and Hiland selected Southwest Missouri, a dealer from which Hiland had previously purchased trucks. Ibid. After selecting Southwest Missouri, Hiland insisted on the price Southwest Missouri had bid prior to a general increase in Volvo’s prices; Volvo obliged by increasing the size of the discount. Id., at 1627. See also id., at 1483-1488; 374 F. 3d, at 720 (Hansen, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
Reeder dominantly relied on comparisons between concessions Volvo offered when Reeder bid against non-Volvo dealers, with concessions accorded to other Volvo dealers similarly bidding against non-Volvo dealers for other sales. Reeder’s evidence compared concessions Reeder received on four occasions when it bid successfully against non-Volvo dealers (and thus purchased Volvo trucks), with more favorable concessions other successful Volvo dealers received in connection with bidding processes in which Reeder did not participate. Id., at 705-706. Reeder also compared concessions offered by Volvo on several occasions when Reeder bid unsuccessfully against non-Volvo dealers (and therefore did not purchase Volvo trucks), with more favorable concessions received by other Volvo dealers who gained contracts on which Reeder did not bid. Id., at 706-707.
Reeder’s vice-president, Heck, testified that Reeder did not look for instances in which it received a larger concession than another Volvo dealer, although he acknowledged it was “quite possible” that such instances occurred. 5 C. A. App. 1462. Nor did Reeder endeavor to determine by any statistical analysis whether Reeder was disfavored on average as compared to another dealer or set of dealers. Id., at 1462-1464.
The jury found that there was a reasonable possibility that discriminatory pricing may have harmed competition between Reeder and other Volvo truck dealers, and that Volvo’s discriminatory pricing injured Reeder. App. 480-486. It further found that Reeder’s damages from Volvo’s Robinson-Patman Act violation exceeded $1.3 million. Id., at 486. The District Court summarily denied Volvo’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and the company’s alternative motion for new trial or remittitur, awarded treble damages on the Robinson-Patman Act claim, and entered judgment.
A divided Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed. The appeals court noted that, “as a threshold mat-tery Reeder had to show [that] it was a ‘purchaser’ within the meaning of the [Act],” 374 F. 3d, at 708, i. e., that “there were actual sales at two different prices[,] ... a sale to [Reeder] and a sale to another Volvo dealer,” id., at 707-708. Rejecting Volvo’s contention that competitive bidding situations do not give rise to claims under the Robinson-Patman Act, id., at 708-709, the Court of Appeals observed that Reeder was “more than an unsuccessful bidder,” id., at 709. The four instances in which Reeder “actually purchased Volvo trucks following successful bids, on contracts,” the court concluded, sufficed to render Reeder a purchaser within the meaning of the Act. Ibid.
The Court of Appeals next determined that a jury could reasonably decide that Reeder was “in actual competition” with favored dealers. Ibid. “[A]s of the time the price differential was imposed,” the court reasoned, “the favored and disfavored purchasers competed at the same functional level . . . and within the same geographic market.” Ibid. (quoting Best Brands Beverage, Inc. v. Falstaff Brewing Corp., 842 F. 2d 578, 585 (CA2 1987)). The court further held that the jury could properly find from the evidence that Reeder had proved competitive injury from price discrimination. Specifically, the court pointed to evidence showing that (1) Volvo intended to reduce the number of its dealers; (2) Reeder lost the Hiland Dairy contract, for which it competed head to head with another Volvo dealer; (3) Reeder would have earned more profits, had it received the concessions other dealers received; and (4) Reeder’s sales had declined over a period of time. 374 F. 3d, at 711-712. The court also affirmed the award of treble damages to Reeder. Id., at 712-714.
Judge Hansen dissented as to the Robinson-Patman Act claim. “Traditional [Robinson-Patman Act] cases,” he observed, “involve sellers and purchasers that carry inventory or deal in fungible goods.” Id., at 718. The majority, Judge Hansen commented, “attempted] to fit a square peg into a round hole,” ibid., when it extended the Act’s reach to the marketplace for heavy-duty trucks, where “special-order products are sold to individual, pre-identified customers only after competitive bidding,” ibid. There may be competition among dealers for the opportunity to bid on potential sales, he noted, but “[o]nce bidding begins,... the relevant market becomes limited to the needs and demands of a particular end user, with only a handful of dealers competing for the ultimate sale.” Id., at 719. Violation of the Act, in Judge Hansen’s view, could not be predicated on the instances Reeder identified in which it was a purchaser, for “there was no actual competition between” Reeder and another Volvo dealer at the time of Reeder’s purchases. Ibid. “Without proof of actual competition” for the same customer when the requisite purchases were made, he concluded, “Reeder cannot demonstrate a reasonable possibility of competitive injury.” Ibid.
We granted certiorari, 544 U. S. 903 (2005), to resolve this question: May a manufacturer be held liable for secondary-line price discrimination under the Robinson-Patman Act in the absence of a showing that the manufacturer discriminated between dealers competing to resell its product to the same retail customer? Satisfied that the Court of Appeals erred in answering that question in the affirmative, we reverse the Eighth Circuit’s judgment.
II
Section 2, “when originally enacted as part of the Clayton Act in 1914, was born of a desire by Congress to curb the use by financially powerful corporations of localized price-cutting tactics which had gravely impaired the competitive position of other sellers.” FTC v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 363 U. S. 536, 543, and n. 6 (1960) (citing H. R. Rep. No. 627, 63d Cong., 2d Sess., 8 (1914); S. Rep. No. 698, 63d Cong., 2d Sess., 2-4 (1914)). Augmenting that provision in 1936 with the Robinson-Patman Act, Congress sought to target the perceived harm to competition occasioned by powerful buyers, rather than sellers; specifically, Congress responded to the advent of large chainstores, enterprises with the clout to obtain lower prices for goods than smaller buyers could demand. See 14 H. Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law ¶ 2302, p. 11 (2d ed. 2006) (hereinafter Hovenkamp); P. Areeda & L. Kaplow, Antitrust Analysis ¶ 602, pp. 908-909 (5th ed. 1997) (hereinafter Areeda). The Act provides, in relevant part:
“It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce ... to discriminate in price between different purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality, . . . where the effect of such discrimination may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce, or to injure, destroy, or prevent competition with any person who either grants or knowingly receives the benefit of such discrimination, or with customers of either of them . . . 15 U. S. C. § 13(a).
Pursuant to §4 of the Clayton Act, a private plaintiff may recover threefold for actual injury sustained as a result of a violation of the Robinson-Patman Act. See 15 U. S. C. § 15(a); J. Truett Payne Co. v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 451 U. S. 557, 562 (1981).
Mindful of the purposes of the Act and of the antitrust laws generally, we have explained that Robinson-Patman does not “ban all price differences charged to different purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality,” Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U. S. 209, 220 (1993) (internal quotation marks omitted); rather, the Act proscribes “price discrimination only to the extent that it threatens to injure competition,” ibid. Our decisions describe three categories of competitive injury that may give rise to a Robinson-Patman Act claim: primary line, secondary line, and tertiary line. Primary-line cases entail conduct — most conspicuously, predatory pricing — that injures competition at the level of the discriminating seller and its direct competitors. See, e. g., id., at 220-222; see also Hovenkamp ¶ 2301a, pp. 4-6. Secondary-line cases, of which this is one, involve price discrimination that injures competition among the discriminating seller’s customers (here, Volvo’s dealerships); cases in this, category typically refer to “favored” and “disfavored” purchasers. See ibid.; Texaco Inc. v. Hasbrouck, 496 U. S. 543, 558, n. 15 (1990). Tertiary-line cases involve injury to competition at the level of the purchaser’s customers. See Areeda ¶ 601e, p. 907.
To establish the secondary-line injury of which it complains, Reeder had to show that (1) the relevant Volvo truck sales were made in interstate commerce; (2) the trucks were of “like grade and quality”; (3) Volvo “discriminate[d] in price between” Reeder and another purchaser of Volvo trucks; and (4) “the effect of such discrimination may be ... to injure, destroy, or prevent competition” to the advantage of a favored purchaser, i. e., one who “receive[d] the benefit of such discrimination.” 15 U. S. C. § 13(a). It is undisputed that Reeder has satisfied the first and second requirements. Volvo and the United States, as amicus curiae, maintain that Reeder cannot satisfy the third and fourth requirements, because Reeder has not identified any differentially priced transaction in which it was both a “purchaser” under the Act and “in actual competition” with a favored purchaser for the same customer.
A hallmark of the requisite competitive injury, our decisions indicate, is the diversion of sales or profits from a disfavored purchaser to a favored purchaser. FTC v. Sun Oil Co., 371 U. S. 505, 518-519 (1963) (evidence showed patronage shifted from disfavored dealers to favored dealers); Falls City Industries, Inc. v. Vanco Beverage, Inc., 460 U. S. 428, 437-438, and n. 8 (1983) (complaint “supported by direct evidence of diverted sales”). We have also recognized that a permissible inference of competitive injury may arise from evidence that a favored competitor received a significant price reduction over a substantial period of time. See FTC v. Morton Salt Co., 334 U. S. 37, 49-51 (1948); Falls City Industries, 460 U. S., at 435. Absent actual competition with a favored Volvo dealer, however, Reeder cannot establish the competitive injury required under the Act.
III
The evidence Reeder offered at trial falls into three categories: (1) comparisons of concessions Reeder received for four successful bids against non-Volvo dealers, with larger concessions other successful Volvo dealers received for different sales on which Reeder did not bid (purchase-to-purchase comparisons); (2) comparisons of concessions offered to Reeder in connection with several unsuccessful bids against non-Volvo dealers, with greater concessions accorded other Volvo dealers who competed successfully for different sales on which Reeder did not bid (offer-to-purchase comparisons); and (3) evidence of two occasions on which Reeder bid against another Volvo dealer (head-to-head comparisons). The Court of Appeals concluded that Reeder demonstrated competitive injury under the Act because Reeder competed with favored purchasers “at the same functional level . . . and within the same geographic market.” 374 F. 3d, at 709 (quoting Best Brands, 842 F. 2d, at 585). As we see it, however, selective comparisons of the kind Reeder presented do not show the injury to competition targeted by the Robinson-Patman Act.
A
Both the purchase-to-purchase and the offer-to-purchase comparisons fall short, for in none of the discrete instances on which Reeder relied did Reeder compete with beneficiaries of the alleged discrimination for the same customer. Nor did Reeder even attempt to show that the compared dealers were consistently favored vis-á-vis Reeder. Reeder simply paired occasions on which it competed with non-Volvo dealers for a sale to Customer A with instances in which other Volvo dealers competed with non-Volvo dealers for a sale to Customer B. The compared incidents were tied to no systematic study and were separated in time by as many as seven months. See 374 F. 3d, at 706, 710.
We decline to permit an inference of competitive injury from evidence of such a mix-and-match, manipulable quality. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 34-35, 55. No similar risk of manipulation occurs in cases kin to the chainstore paradigm. Here, there is no discrete “favored” dealer comparable to a chain-store or a large independent department store — at least, Reeder’s evidence is insufficient to support an inference of such a dealer or set of dealers. For all we know, Reeder, on occasion, might have gotten a better deal vis-a-vis one or more of the dealers in its comparisons. See supra, at 172.
Reeder may have competed with other Volvo dealers for the opportunity to bid on potential sales in a broad geographic area. At that initial stage, however, competition is not affected by differential pricing; a dealer in the competitive bidding process here at issue approaches Volvo for a price concession only after it has been selected by a retail customer to submit a bid. Competition for an opportunity to bid, we earlier observed, is based on a variety of factors, including the existence vel non of a relationship between the potential bidder and the customer, geography, and reputation. See supra, at 170. We reiterate in this regard an observation made by Judge Hansen, dissenting from the Eighth Circuit’s Robinson-Patman holding: Once a retail customer has chosen the particular dealers from which it will solicit bids, “the relevant market becomes limited to the needs and demands of a particular end user, with only a handful of dealers competing for the ultimate sale.” 374 F. 3d, at 719. That Volvo dealers may bid for sales in the same geographic area does not import that they in fact competed for the same customer-tailored sales. In sum, the purchase-to-purchase and offer-to-purchase comparisons fail to show that Volvo sold at a lower price to Reeder’s “competitors,” hence those comparisons do not support an inference of competitive injury. See Falls City Industries, 460 U. S., at 435 (inference of competitive injury under Morton Salt arises from “proof of a substantial price discrimination between competing purchasers over time” (emphasis added)).
B
Reeder did offer evidence of two instances in which it competed head to head with another Volvo dealer. See supra, at 171-172. When multiple dealers bid for the business of the same customer, only one dealer will win the business and thereafter purchase the supplier’s product to fulfill its contractual commitment. Because Robinson-Patman “prohibits only discrimination ‘between different purchasers’” Brief for Petitioner 26 (quoting 15 U. S. C. § 13(a); emphasis added), Volvo and the United States argue, the Act does not reach markets characterized by competitive bidding and special-order sales, as opposed to sales from inventory. See Brief for Petitioner 27; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 9, 17-20. We need not decide that question today. Assuming the Act applies to the head-to-head transactions, Reeder did not establish that it was disfavored vis-a-vis other Volvo dealers in the rare instances in which they competed for the same sale — let alone that the alleged discrimination was substantial. See 1 ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Antitrust Law Developments 478-479 (5th ed. 2002) (“No inference of injury to competition is permitted when the discrimination is not substantial.” (collecting cases)).
Reeder’s evidence showed loss of only one sale to another Volvo dealer, a sale of 12 trucks that would have generated $30,000 in gross profits for Reeder. 374 F. 3d, at 705. Per its policy, Volvo initially offered Reeder and the other dealer the same concession. Volvo ultimately granted a larger concession to the other dealer, but only after it had won the bid. In the only other instance of head-to-head competition Reeder identified, Volvo increased Reeder’s initial 17% discount to 18.9%, to match the discount offered to the other competing Volvo dealer; neither dealer won the bid. See supra, at 172. In short, if price discrimination between two purchasers existed at all, it was not of such magnitude as to affect substantially competition between Reeder and the “favored” Volvo dealer.
IV
Interbrand competition, our opinions affirm, is the “primary concern of antitrust law.” Continental T. V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc., 433 U. S. 36, 51-52, n. 19 (1977). The Robinson-Patman Act signals no large departure from that main concern. Even if the Act’s text could be construed in the manner urged by Reeder and embraced by the Court of Appeals, we would resist interpretation geared more to the protection of existing competitors than to the stimulation of competition. In the case before us, there is no evidence that any favored purchaser possesses market power, the allegedly favored purchasers are dealers with little resemblance to large independent department stores or chain operations, and the supplier’s selective price discounting fosters competition among suppliers of different brands. See id., at 51-52 (observing that the market impact of a vertical practice, such as a change in a supplier’s distribution system, may be a “simultaneous reduction of intrabrand competition and stimulation of interbrand competition”). By declining to extend Robinson-Patman’s governance to such cases, we continue to construe the Act “consistently with broader policies of the antitrust laws.” Brooke Group, 509 U. S., at 220 (quoting Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. FTC, 440 U. S. 69, 80, n. 13 (1979)); see Automatic Canteen Co. of America v. FTC, 346 U. S. 61, 63 (1953) (cautioning against Robinson-Patman constructions that “extend beyond the prohibitions of the Act and, in doing so, help give rise to a price uniformity and rigidity in open conflict with the purposes of other antitrust legislation”).
* * *
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
To shield its ability to compete with other manufacturers, Volvo keeps confidential its precise method for calculating concessions offered to dealers. 374 F. 3d 701, 704-705 (CA8 2004); App. 337-338.
The jury also awarded Reeder damages of $513,750 on Reeder’s state-law claim under the Arkansas Franchise Practices Act. No question is before us respecting that claim, which trained on Volvo’s alleged design to eliminate Reeder as a Volvo dealer. See supra, at 171.
A dealer’s reputation for securing favorable concessions, we recognize, may influence the customer’s bidding invitations. Cf. post, at 183, n. 2. We do not pursue that point here, however, because Reeder did not present — or even look for — evidence that Volvo consistently disfavored Reeder while it consistently favored certain other dealers. See supra, at 172-173.
The dissent assails Volvo’s decision to reduce the number of its dealers. Post, at 183. But Robinson-Patman does not bar a manufacturer from restructuring its distribution networks to improve the efficiency of its operations. If Volvo did not honor its obligations to Reeder as its franchisee, “[a]ny remedy . .. lies in state laws addressing unfair competition and the rights of franchisees, not in the Robinson-Patman Act.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 28.
See also Hovenkamp ¶ 2333c, p. 109 (commenting that the Eighth Circuit’s expansive interpretation “views the [Robinson-Patman Act] as a guarantee of equal profit margins on sales actually made,” and thereby exposes manufacturers to treble damages unless they “charge uniform prices to their dealers”).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Burton
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue in this case is whether the custodian of a union’s books and records may, on the ground of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, refuse to answer questions asked by a federal grand jury as to the whereabouts of such books and records which he has not produced pursuant to subpoena. For the reasons hereafter stated, we hold that the privilege against self-incrimination attaches to such questions.
In April 1956, a special grand jury in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York was investigating racketeering in the garment and trucking industries in New York City. This investigation followed widespread charges of racketeering in labor unions, including specific charges that seven local unions had been recently chartered by a faction of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters to gain control of the Teamsters’ New York Joint Council, and that these “phantom unions” were controlled by a group of gangsters, ex-convicts and labor racketeers.
Petitioner, Joseph Curcio, the secretary-treasurer of Local 269 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, one of the alleged “phantom unions,” was subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury, and to produce the union’s books and records. There were two subpoenas — a personal subpoena ad testificandum and a subpoena duces tecum addressed to him in his capacity as secretary-treasurer of Local 269. On several days he appeared before the grand jury but failed to produce the demanded books and records. He testified that he was the secretary-treasurer of Local 269; that the union had books and records; but that they were not then in his possession. He refused, on the ground of self-incrimination, to answer any questions pertaining to the whereabouts, or who had possession, of the books and records he had been ordered to produce.
The District Court, after a hearing in which petitioner attempted to justify his claim of privilege, directed petitioner to answer 15 questions pertaining to the whereabouts of the books and records. It ruled that petitioner’s claim of privilege was improper because he had not made a sufficient showing that his answers might incriminate him. When petitioner persisted in his refusal to answer, the District Court summarily adjudged him guilty of criminal contempt, and sentenced him to six months’ confinement unless he sooner purged himself by answering the questions. This conviction related solely to petitioner’s failure to answer questions asked pursuant to the personal subpoena ad testificandum. He has not been charged with failing to produce the books and records demanded in the subpoena duces tecum.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. 234 F. 2d 470. It held that petitioner had failed to show that his answers to the 15 questions might incriminate him; that the privilege against self-incrimination did not attach to questions put to a custodian relating to the whereabouts of union books; and that petitioner had been accorded a fair hearing. We granted certiorari to determine whether petitioner’s claim of privilege was properly denied. 352 U. S. 820.
In the courts below, the Government contended that petitioner had not made a sufficient showing that answering the 15 questions might tend to incriminate him. The Government no longer so contends. In its brief it now says, “We make no claim that, if petitioner’s personal privilege did apply to questions concerning the union records, he failed to make an adequate showing of possible incrimination.” There is substantial ground for the Government’s concession.
We turn, therefore, to the remaining issue — whether petitioner’s personal privilege against self-incrimination attaches to questions relating to the whereabouts of the union books and records which he did not produce pursuant to subpoena.
It is settled that a corporation is not protected by the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. A corporate officer may not withhold testimony or documents on the ground that his corporation would be incriminated. Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43. Nor may the custodian of corporate books or records withhold them on the ground that he personally might be incriminated by their production. Wilson v. United States, 221 U. S. 361 ; Essgee Co. v. United States, 262 U. S. 151. Even after the dissolution of a corporation and the transfer of its books to individual stockholders, the transferees may not invoke their privilege with respect to the former corporate records. Grant v. United States, 227 U. S. 74; Wheeler v. United States, 226 U. S. 478. The foregoing cases stand for the principle that the books and records of corporations cannot be insulated from reasonable demands of governmental authorities by a claim of personal privilege on the part of their custodian.
In United States v. White, 322 U. S. 694, this principle was applied to an unincorporated association, a labor union. Stating that the privilege against self-incrimination had the historic function of “protecting only the natural individual from compulsory incrimination through his own testimony or personal records” (id., at 701), the Court held that “the papers and effects which the privilege protects must be the private property of the person claiming the privilege, or at least in his possession in a purely personal capacity” (id., at 699).
“But individuals, when acting as representatives of a collective group, cannot be said to be exercising their personal rights and duties nor to be entitled to their purely personal privileges. Rather they assume the rights, duties and privileges of the artificial entity or association of which they are agents or officers and they are bound by its obligations. In their official capacity, therefore, they have no privilege against self-incrimination. And the official records and documents of the organization that are held by them in a representative rather than in a personal capacity cannot be the subject of the personal privilege against self-incrimination, even though production of the papers might tend to incriminate them personally.” Id., at 699.
The Government now contends that the representative duty which required the production of union records in the White case requires the giving of oral testimony by the custodian in this case. From the fact that the custodian has no privilege with respect to the union books in his possession, the Government reasons that he also has no privilege with respect to questions seeking to ascertain the whereabouts of books and records which have been subpoenaed but not produced. In other words, when the custodian fails to produce the books, he must, according to the Government, explain or account under oath for their nonproduction, even though to do so may tend to incriminate him.
The Fifth Amendment suggests no such exception. It guarantees that “No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself . . . .” A custodian, by assuming the duties of his office, undertakes the obligation to produce the books of which he is custodian in response to a rightful exercise of the State’s visitorial powers. But he cannot lawfully be compelled, in the absence of a grant of adequate immunity from prosecution, to condemn himself by his own oral testimony.
In the Wilson case, supra, which is the leading case for the proposition that corporate officers may not invoke their personal privilege against self-incrimination to prevent the production of corporate records, Mr. Justice Hughes, speaking for the Court, drew the distinction sharply. He said, “They [the custodians of corporate records] may decline to utter upon the witness stand a single self-criminating word. They may demand that any accusation against them individually be established without the aid of their oral testimony or the compulsory production by them of their private papers.” 221 U. S., at 385. In the White case, supra, the Court was careful to point out that “The subpoena duces tecum was directed to the union and demanded the production only of its official documents and records” (322 U. S., at 704), that “He [White, the custodian of the union’s records] had not been subpoenaed personally to testify” (id., at 695-696), and that “there was no effort or indicated intention to examine him personally as a witness” (id., at 696). And in Shapiro v. United States, 335 U. S. 1, 27, holding that the privilege against self-incrimination did not apply to records required to be kept by food licensees under wartime OPA regulations, the Court said, “Of course all oral testimony by individuals can properly be compelled only by exchange of immunity for waiver of privilege.” There is no hint in these decisions that a custodian of corporate or association books waives his constitutional privilege as to oral testimony by assuming the duties of his office. By accepting custodianship of records he “has voluntarily assumed a duty which overrides his claim of privilege” only with respect to the production of the records themselves. Wilson v. United States, 221 U. S. 361, 380.
United States v. Austin-Bagley Cory., 31 F. 2d 229, and cases following it are relied upon by the Government. Those cases, holding that a corporate officer who has been required by subpoena to produce corporate documents may also be required, by oral testimony, to identify them, are distinguishable and we need not pass on their validity. The custodian’s act of producing books or records in response to a subpoena duces tecum is itself a representation that the documents produced are those demanded by the subpoena. Requiring the custodian to identify or authenticate the documents for admission in evidence merely makes explicit what is implicit in the production itself. The custodian is subjected to little, if any, further danger of incrimination. However, in the instant case, the Government is seeking to compel the custodian to do more than identify documents already produced. It seeks to compel him to disclose, by his oral testimony, the whereabouts of books and records which he has failed to produce. It even seeks to make the custodian name the persons in whose possession the missing books may be found. Answers to such questions are more than “auxiliary to the production” of unprivileged corporate or association records.
The Government cites but one federal case, United States v. Field, 193 F. 2d 92, as directly supporting its position. In that case, the trustees of a bail fund were held in contempt for failure to produce records of the fund pursuant to a subpoena. After affirming the convictions on that ground, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit went on to consider, by way of dictum, other contentions raised by the trustees. One of their contentions was that questions about the location and production of records were improper. The court, relying on several cases in which a custodian was compelled to identify records which he had already produced, said that the questions pertaining to the location of the records “were proper under the precedents.” Id., at 97. The cases cited, however, do not support the court’s dictum.
The Government suggests that subpoenaed corporate and association records will be obtained more readily for law-enforcement purposes if their custodian is threatened with summary commitment for contempt in failing to testify as to their whereabouts, rather than with prosecution for disobedience of the subpoena to produce the records themselves. We need not concern ourselves with the relative efficacy of those procedures. There is a great difference between them. The compulsory production of corporate or association records by their custodian is readily justifiable, even though the custodian protests against it for personal reasons, because he does not own the records and has no legally cognizable interest in them. However, forcing the custodian to testify orally as to the whereabouts of nonproduced records requires him to disclose the contents of his own mind. He might be compelled to convict himself out of his own mouth. That is contrary to the spirit and letter of the Fifth Amendment.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded to the District Court with instructions to enter a judgment of acquittal.
Reversed and remanded.
The questions were as follows:
“I am going to ask you certain questions, including some that were put to you on Thursday, which you declined to answer. Referring to the books and records of Local 269 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, have you at any time been in custody of those books and records? ....
“Mr. Curcio, have you ever had possession of the books and records of this local? ....
“Did you have custody and control of these records last Thursday? ....
“Do you have possession of those records or any of them today? ....
“Do you have custody and control of any of those records today? ....
“Where are any of those records today, if you know? ....
“Who has any of those records today, if you know? ....
“Where were any of these records or all of these records a week ago Thursday? ....
“Where were any or all of these records a week ago Saturday? ....
“Where were any or all of these records a week ago last Monday? ....
“Where were any or all of these records yesterday? ....
“Where are any or all of these records today? ....
“Who, if you know, had any or all of these records a week ago last Saturday? ....
“Who had any or all of these records a week ago yesterday? . . . .
“Who has any or all of these records today? . . . .”
The above questions were selected by the Government from 225 that were asked petitioner before the grand jury. He was directed by the foreman of the grand jury to answer these 15, and, upon his refusal to do so under claim of his privilege against self-incrimination, the District Court advised him that it proposed to ask him those questions itself, and that his failure to answer them would constitute contempt of court. The District Judge thereupon asked petitioner these questions in open court in the presence of the grand jury. Petitioner refused to answer each of them, and stated that he refused to do so because his answers might tend to incriminate him.
The grand jury was investigating union racketeering. The newspapers had featured charges that petitioner’s union was one of seven “phantom locals” of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and that it was dominated by gangsters and racketeers. Petitioner conceded that he had a prison record and it was charged that the president of Local 269 was Johnny DioGuardia, allegedly one of the key figures in union racketeering in the New York area. In this context, the questions were incriminating. See 18 U. S. C. §§ 1503 and 1951. “To sustain the privilege, it need only be evident from the implications of the question, in the setting in which it is asked, that a responsive answer to the question or an explanation of why it cannot be answered might be dangerous because injurious disclosure could result.” Hoffman v. United States, 341 U. S. 479, 486-487. See also, Trock v. United States, 351 U. S. 976; Emspak v. United States, 349 U. S. 190; Singleton v. United States, 343 U. S. 944; Greenberg v. United States, 343 U. S. 918.
Pulford v. United States, 155 F. 2d 944, 947; Lumber Products Assn. v. United States, 144 F. 2d 546, 553; Carolene Products Co. v. United States, 140 F. 2d 61, 66-67; United States v. Illinois Alcohol Co., 45 F. 2d 145, 149. See also, United States v. Lay Fish Co., 13 F. 2d 136, 137.
The leading case of United States v. Austin-Bagley Corp., supra, at 233, 234, explains the scope and limitations of this doctrine. In that case, the secretary-treasurer of a corporation, who was charged with conspiracy to violate the National Prohibition Act, was called to the stand by the Government and compelled to identify the minutes of the corporation. Circuit Judge Learned Hand, for the Court of Appeals, upheld this procedure, stating:
“That the production of the books and documents could be compelled, even if they contained entries incriminating the accused, is now well-settled law. . . . However, the availability of the documents does not necessarily determine that of the testimony by which they may be authenticated. Conceivably it might be possible to force their production, and yet their possessor be protected from proving by his oath that they were what they purport to be. . . .
“While, therefore, we do not disguise the fact that there is here a possible; if tenuous, distinction, we think that the greater includes the less, and that, since the production can be forced, it may be made effective by compelling the producer to declare that the documents are genuine. . . . Hence it appears to us that the case [Heike v. United States, 227 U. S. 131] determines that testimony auxiliary to the production is as unprivileged as are the documents themselves. By accepting the office of custodian the holder not only exposes himself to producing the documents, but to making their use possible without requiring other proof than his own.”
The Government also cites Bleakley v. Schlesinger, 294 N. Y. 312, 62 N. E. 2d 85, holding-that a corporation officer who fails to produce corporate records pursuant to a subpoena must give a reasonable explanation or suffer the penalty for nonproduction. But cf. Bradley v. O’Hare, 2 App. Div. 2d 436, 156 N. Y. S. 2d 533, where questions put to a union official relating to the whereabouts of union records were held privileged.
Moreover, prior and subsequent decisions of the same court, in which two of the same judges participated, contradict the statement contained in the Field case. In United States v. Daisart Sportswear, Inc., 169 F. 2d 856, 861-862, the court stated that “we do not believe that the principle of the Austin-Bagley case, supra, may be projected so that a corporate officer may be compelled to testify as to any and all phases of the corporation’s activities, without at the same time obtaining a grant of immunity for the incriminating matter he is compelled to disclose.” And further, that “the production of records must be distinguished from oral testimony as to what the records would contain, had they been produced.” Id., at 862. Subsequently, in United States v. Patterson, 219 F. 2d 659, 662, the court, in reversing a contempt conviction for refusal to produce records, approved the trial court’s ruling that questions relating to the whereabouts of the records were privileged. “The defendant can here legally be jailed only for a contempt in failing to produce the sought-after books when they are fairly shown to be presently within his power and control. He cannot legally be jailed for contempt for invoking his constitutionally protected privilege not to be a witness against himself.”
See also, Lopiparo v. United States, 216 F. 2d 87, where the trial court upheld the custodian’s claim of privilege with respect to oral testimony pertaining to corporate records.
In this case petitioner might have been proceeded against for his failure to produce the records demanded by the subpoena duces tecum. See Nilva v. United States, 352 U. S. 385; United States v. Fleischman, 339 U. S. 349; United States v. White, 322 U. S. 694; Wilson v. United States, 221 U. S. 361.
From a memorandum filed by the Government, it appears that petitioner later did produce for the grand jury certain books and records of the union when threatened with a commitment for contempt for his failure to comply with a subsequent subpoena duces tecum issued to him in his representative capacity. The Government suggested that this subsequent compliance had rendered this proceeding moot, but we believe that it did not do so because the order for petitioner’s commitment was for criminal, not civil, contempt.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner’s three-day murder trial ended in a mistrial when the jury reported a hopeless deadlock. A retrial was scheduled for the following month. In the interim, petitioner filed a motion alleging that he was indigent, and asking for a free transcript of the first trial. The trial court denied his motion, and the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed, stating that the record of the case did not reveal a sufficient need for the transcript. 8 N. C. App. 262, 174 S. E. 2d 69 (1970). The North Carolina Supreme Court denied certiorari. We granted certiorari to determine whether the rule of Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U. S. 12 (1956), applies in this context. 401 U. S. 973 (1971). We conclude that it does, but that in the narrow circumstances of this case, no violation of that rule has been shown, and therefore we affirm.
Griffin v. Illinois and its progeny establish the principle that the State must, as a matter of equal protection, provide indigent prisoners with the basic tools of an adequate defense or appeal, when those tools are available for a price to other prisoners. While the outer limits of that principle are not clear, there can be no doubt that the State must provide an indigent defendant with a transcript of prior proceedings when that transcript is needed for an effective defense or appeal. The question here is whether the state court properly determined that the transcript requested in this case was not needed for an effective defense.
In prior cases involving an indigent defendant’s claim of right to a free transcript, this Court has identified two factors that are relevant to the determination of need: (1) the value of the transcript to the defendant in connection with the appeal or trial for which it is sought, and (2) the availability of alternative devices that would fulfill the same functions as a transcript. Mr. Justice Douglas suggests that the North Carolina courts refused to order a transcript in this case both because petitioner failed to make a particularized showing of need, and because there were adequate alternative devices available to him.
We agree with the dissenters that there would be serious doubts about the decision below if it rested on petitioner’s failure to specify how the transcript might have been useful to him. Our cases have consistently recognized the value to a defendant of a transcript of prior proceedings, without requiring a showing of need tailored to the facts of the particular case. As Mr. Justice Douglas makes clear, even in the absence of specific allegations it can ordinarily be assumed that a transcript of a prior mistrial would be valuable to the defendant in at least two ways: as a discovery device in preparation for trial, and as a tool at the trial itself for the impeachment of prosecution witnesses.
But the court below did not use the language of “particularized need.” It rested thé decision instead on the second factor in the determination of need, that is, the availability of adequate alternatives to a transcript. The second trial was before the same judge, with the same counsel and the same court reporter, and the two trials were only a month apart. In these circumstances, the court suggested that petitioner’s memory and that of his counsel should have furnished an adequate substitute for a transcript. In addition, the court pointed to the fact that petitioner could have called the court reporter to read to the jury the testimony given at the mistrial, in the event that inconsistent testimony was offered at the second trial.
We have repeatedly rejected the suggestion that in order to render effective assistance, counsel must have a perfect memory or keep exhaustive notes of the testimony given at trial. Moreover, we doubt that it would suffice to provide the defendant with limited access to the court reporter during the course of the second trial. That approach was aptly rejected as “too little and too late” in United States ex rel. Wilson v. McMann, 408 F. 2d 896, 897 (CA2 1969). At oral argument in this case, however, it emerged that petitioner could have obtained from the court reporter far more assistance than that available to the ordinary defendant, or to the defendant in Wilson. The trials of this case took place in a small town where, according to petitioner’s counsel, the court reporter was a good friend of all the local lawyers and was reporting the second trial. It appears that the reporter would at any time have read back to counsel his notes of the mistrial, well in advance of the second trial, if counsel had simply made an informal request.
A defendant who claims the right to a free transcript does not, under our cases, bear the burden of proving inadequate such alternatives as may be suggested by the State or conjured up by a court in hindsight. In this case, however, petitioner has conceded that he had available an informal alternative which appears to be substantially equivalent to a transcript. Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the court below was in error in rejecting his claim.
For these reasons the judgment is Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Blackmun concurs in the result, but he would dismiss the petition for certiorari as having been improvidently granted.
Williams v. Oklahoma City, 395 U. S. 458 (1969); Gardner v. California, 393 U. S. 367 (1969); Roberts v. LaVallee, 389 U. S. 40 (1967); Long v. District Court of Iowa, 385 U. S. 192 (1966); Draper v. Washington, 372 U. S. 487 (1963); Eskridge v. Washington Prison Board, 357 U. S. 214 (1958); Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U. S. 12 (1956).
See Draper v. Washington, supra, at 495-496, and other cases cited n. 1, supra.
In Griffin, the Court was able to rely on a concession of need by the State, 351 U. S., at 13-14, 16. In subsequent cases the Court has taken judicial notice of the importance of a transcript in a variety of circumstances, see Eskridge, supra, at 215; Gardner, supra, at 369-370. Most recently in Long and Roberts the Court simply found it unnecessary to discuss the question, notwithstanding the fact that in Roberts Mr. Justice Harlan argued in dissent that petitioner had suggested no use to which the transcript could have been put, 389 U. S., at 43.
While trial notes might well provide an adequate substitute for a transcript, the failure to make such notes does not bar an indigent prisoner from claiming the right to a free transcript, Eskridge, supra, at 215. As for requiring a prisoner to rely on his memory, this Court rejected that as an alternative to a transcript in Gardner, supra, at 369-370, and Williams, supra, at 459. Indeed, in Long we refused to consider any alternatives suggested by the State, on the ground that in that case a transcript was in fact available and could easily have been furnished. 385 U. S., at 194 — 195. Whether a transcript is similarly available in this case does not appear from the record.
Tr. of Oral Arg. 12. Cf. Avery v. Alabama, 308 U. S. 444, 450-452 (1940) (Black, J.).
Cf. Wade v. Wilson, 396 U. S. 282 (1970), in which no such concession was made. In that case it simply appeared from the record that petitioner might have been able to borrow a transcript from the prosecutor, in light of the fact that he had done so in an earlier proceeding. We remanded the case to permit exploration of that possibility.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari in this case, 456 U. S. 924 (1982), to decide whether the District Court for the Western District of Missouri applied the correct legal standard in instructing the jury that it might award punitive damages under 42 U. S. C. §1983 (1976 ed., Supp. V). The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit sustained the award of punitive damages. Wade v. Haynes, 663 F. 2d 778 (1981). We affirm.
HH
The petitioner, William H. Smith, is a guard at Algoa Reformatory, a unit of the Missouri Division of Corrections for youthful first offenders. The respondent, Daniel R. Wade, was assigned to Algoa as an inmate in 1976. In the summer of 1976 Wade voluntarily checked into Algoa’s protective custody unit. Because of disciplinary violations during his stay in protective custody, Wade was given a short term in punitive segregation and then transferred to administrative segregation. On the evening of Wade’s first day in administrative segregation, he was placed in a cell with another inmate. Later, when Smith came on duty in Wade’s dormitory, he placed a third inmate in Wade’s cell. According to Wade’s testimony, his cellmates harassed, beat, and sexually assaulted him.
Wade brought suit under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 against Smith and four other guards and correctional officials, alleging that his Eighth Amendment rights had been violated. At trial his evidence showed that he had placed himself in protective custody because of prior incidents of violence against him by other inmates. The third prisoner whom Smith added to the cell had been placed in administrative segregation for fighting. Smith had made no effort to find out whether another cell was available; in fact there was another cell in the same dormitory with only one occupant. Further, only a few weeks earlier, another inmate had been beaten to death in the same dormitory during the same shift, while Smith had been on duty. Wade asserted that Smith and the other defendants knew or should have known that an assault against him was likely under the circumstances.
During trial, the District Judge entered a directed verdict for two of the defendants. He instructed the jury that Wade could make out an Eighth Amendment violation only by showing “physical abuse of such base, inhumane and barbaric proportions as to shock the sensibilities.” Tr. 639. Further, because of Smith’s qualified immunity as a prison guard, see Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U. S. 555 (1978), the judge instructed the jury that Wade could recover only if the defendants were guilty of “gross negligence” (defined as “a callous indifference or a thoughtless disregard for the consequences of one’s act or failure to act”) or “[e]gregious failure to protect” (defined as “a flagrant or remarkably bad failure to protect”) Wade. Tr. 641-642. He reiterated that Wade could not recover on a showing of simple negligence. Id., at 644.
The District Judge also charged the jury that it could award punitive damages on a proper showing:
“In addition to actual damages, the law permits the jury, under certain circumstances, to award the injured person punitive and exemplary damages, in order to punish the wrongdoer for some extraordinary misconduct, and to serve as an example or warning to others not to engage in such conduct.
“If you find the issues in favor of the plaintiff, and if the conduct of one or more of the defendants is shown to be a reckless or callous disregard of, or indifference to, the rights or safety of others, then you may assess punitive or exemplary damages in addition to any award of actual damages.
“... The amount, of punitive or exemplary damages assessed against any defendant may be such sum as you believe will serve to punish that defendant and to deter him and others from like conduct.” Id., at 643 (emphasis added).
The jury returned verdicts for two of the three remaining defendants. It found Smith liable, however, and awarded $25,000 in compensatory damages and $5,000 in punitive damages. The District Court entered judgment on the verdict, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Wade v. Haynes, 663 F. 2d 778 (1981).
In this Court, Smith attacks only the award of punitive damages. He does not challenge the correctness of the instructions on liability or qualified immunity, nor does he question the adequacy of the evidence to support the verdict of liability for compensatory damages.
II
Section 1983 is derived from § 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13. It was intended to create “a species of tort liability” in favor of persons deprived of federally secured rights. Carey v. Piphus, 435 U. S. 247, 253 (1978); Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409, 417 (1976). We noted in Carey that there was little in the section’s legislative history concerning the damages recoverable for this tort liability, 435 U. S., at 255. In the absence of more specific guidance, we looked first to the common law of torts (both modérn and as of 1871), with such modification or adaptation as might be necessary to carry out the purpose and policy of the statute. Id., at 253-264. We have done the same in other contexts arising under § 1983, especially the recurring problem of common-law immunities.
Smith correctly concedes that “punitive damages are available in a ‘proper’ § 1983 action... Carlson v. Green, 446 U. S. 14, 22 (1980); Brief for Petitioner 8. Although there was debate about the theoretical correctness of the punitive damages doctrine in the latter part of the last century, the doctrine was accepted as settled law by nearly all state and federal courts, including this Court. It was likewise generally established that individual public officers were liable for punitive damages for their misconduct on the same basis as other individual defendants. See also Scott v. Donald, 165 U. S. 58, 77-89 (1897) (punitive damages for constitutional tort). Further, although the precise issue of the availability of punitive damages under § 1983 has never come squarely before us, we have had occasion more than once to make clear our view that they are available; indeed, we have rested decisions on related questions on the premise of such availability.
Smith argues, nonetheless, that this was not a “proper” case in which to award punitive damages. More particularly, he attacks the instruction that punitive damages could be awarded on a finding of reckless or callous disregard of or indifference to Wade’s rights or safety. Instead, he contends that the proper test is one of actual malicious intent— “ill will, spite, or intent to injure.” Brief for Petitioner 9. He offers two arguments for this position: first, that actual intent is the proper standard for punitive damages in all cases under § 1983; and second, that even if intent is not always required, it should be required here because the threshold for punitive damages should always be higher than that for liability in the first instance. We address these in turn.
III
Smith does not argue that the common law, either in 1871 or now, required or requires a showing of actual malicious intent for recovery of punitive damages. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 5-6, 9.
Perhaps not surprisingly, there was significant variation (both terminological and substantive) among American jurisdictions in the latter 19th century on the precise standard to be applied in awarding punitive damages — variation that was exacerbated by the ambiguity and slipperiness of such common terms as “malice” and “gross negligence.” Most of the confusion, however, seems to have been over the degree of negligence, recklessness, carelessness, or culpable indifference that should be required — not over whether actual intent was essential. On the contrary, the rule in a large majority of jurisdictions was that punitive damages (also called exemplary damages, vindictive damages, or smart money) could be awarded without a showing of actual ill will, spite, or intent to injure.
This Court so stated on several occasions, before and shortly after 1871. In Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co. v. Quigley, 21 How. 202 (1859), a diversity libel suit, the Court held erroneous an instruction that authorized the jury to return a punitive award but gave the jury virtually no substantive guidance as to the proper threshold. We described the standard thus:
“Whenever the injury complained of has been inflicted maliciously or wantonly, and with circumstances of contumely or indignity, the jury are not limited to the ascertainment of a simple compensation for the wrong committed against the aggrieved person. But the malice spoken of in this rule is not merely the doing of an unlawful or injurious act. The word implies that the act complained of was conceived in the spirit of mischief, or of criminal indifference to civil obligations.” Id., at 214 (emphasis added).
The Court further explained the standard for punitive damages in Milwaukee & St. Paul R. Co. v. Arms, 91 U. S. 489 (1876), a diversity railroad collision case:
“Redress commensurate to such [personal] injuries should be afforded. In ascertaining its extent, the jury may consider all the facts which relate to the wrongful act of the defendant, and its consequences to the plaintiff; but they are not at liberty to go farther, unless it was done wilfully, or was the result of that reckless indifference to the rights of others which is equivalent to an intentional violation of them. In that case, the jury are authorized, for the sake of public example, to give such additional damages as the circumstances require. The tort is aggravated by the evil motive, and on this rests the rule of exemplary damages.” Id., at 493.
“... To [assess punitive damages], there must have been some wilful misconduct, or that entire want of care which would raise the presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences” Id., at 495 (emphasis added).
The Court therefore held erroneous a jury instruction allowing a punitive award on “gross negligence”; it concluded that the latter term was too vague, and too likely to be confused with mere ordinary negligence, to provide a fair standard. It remanded for a new trial.
Ten years later, the Court in dictum suggested that perhaps even gross negligence would suffice after all, at least in some cases:
“For injuries resulting from a neglect of duties, in the discharge of which the public is interested, juries are also permitted to assess exemplary damages. These may be perhaps considered as falling under the head of cases of gross negligence, for any neglect of duties imposed for the protection of life or property is culpable, and deserves punishment.” Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Humes, 115 U. S. 512, 521 (1885).
See also Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Beckwith, 129 U. S. 26, 34 (1889) (“culpable negligence”).
The large majority of state and lower federal courts were in agreement that punitive damages awards did not require a showing of actual malicious intent; they permitted punitive awards on variously stated standards of negligence, recklessness, or other culpable conduct short of actual malicious intent.
The same rule applies today. The Restatement (Second) of Torts (1979), for example, states: “Punitive damages may be awarded for conduct that is outrageous, because of the defendant’s evil motive or his reckless indifference to the rights of others.” § 908(2) (emphasis added); see also id., Comment b. Most cases under state common law, although varying in their precise terminology, have adopted more or less the same rule, recognizing that punitive damages in tort cases may be awarded not only for actual intent to injure or evil motive, but also for recklessness, serious indifference to or disregard for the rights of others, or even gross negligence.
The remaining question is whether the policies and purposes of § 1983 itself require a departure from the rules of tort common law. As a general matter, we discern no reason why a person whose federally guaranteed rights have been violated should be granted a more restrictive remedy than a person asserting an ordinary tort cause of action. Smith offers us no persuasive reason to the contrary.
Smith’s argument, which he offers in several forms, is that an actual-intent standard is preferable to a recklessness standard because it is less vague. He points out that punitive damages, by their very nature, are not awarded to compensate the injured party. See Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U. S. 247, 266-267 (1981); Electrical Workers v. Foust, 442 U. S. 42, 48 (1979); Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U. S. 323, 349-350 (1974). He concedes, of course, that deterrence of future egregious conduct is a primary purpose of both § 1983, see Newport, supra, at 268; Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U. S. 622, 651 (1980); Robertson v. Wegmann, 436 U. S. 584, 591 (1978), and of punitive damages, see Newport, supra, at 268; Restatement (Second) of Torts §908(1) (1979). But deterrence, he contends, cannot be achieved unless the standard of conduct sought to be deterred is stated with sufficient clarity to enable potential defendants to conform to the law and to avoid the proposed sanction. Recklessness or callous indifference, he argues, is too uncertain a standard to achieve deterrence rationally and fairly. A prison guard, for example, can be expected to know whether he is acting with actual ill will or intent to injure, but not whether he is being reckless or callously indifferent.
Smith’s argument, if valid, would apply to ordinary tort cases as easily as to § 1983 suits; hence,, it hardly presents an argument for adopting a different rule under § 1983. In any event, the argument is unpersuasive. While, arguendo, an intent standard may be easier to understand and apply to particular situations than a recklessness standard, we are not persuaded that a recklessness standard is too vague to be fair or useful. In the Milwaukee case, 91 U. S. 489 (1876), we adopted a recklessness standard rather than a gross negligence standard precisely because recklessness would better serve the need for adequate clarity and fair application. Almost a century later, in the First Amendment context, we held that punitive damages cannot be assessed for defamation in the absence of proof of “knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.” Gertz, 418 U. S., at 849. Our concern in Gertz was that the threat of punitive damages, if not limited to especially egregious cases, might “inhibit the vigorous exercise of First Amendment freedoms,” ibid. — a concern at least as pressing as any urged by Smith in this case. Yet we did not find it necessary to impose an actual-intent standard there. Just as Smith has not shown why § 1983 should give higher protection from punitive damages than ordinary tort law, he has not explained why it gives higher protection than we have demanded under the First Amendment.
More fundamentally, Smith’s argument for certainty in the interest of deterrence overlooks the distinction between a standard for punitive damages and a standard of liability in the first instance. Smith seems to assume that prison guards and other state officials look mainly to the standard for punitive damages in shaping their conduct. We question the premise; we assume, and hope, that most officials are guided primarily by the underlying standards of federal substantive law — both out of devotion to duty, and in the interest of avoiding liability for compensatory damages. At any rate, the conscientious officer who desires clear guidance on how to do his job and avoid lawsuits can and should look to the standard for actionability in the first instance. The need for exceptional clarity in the standard for punitive damages arises only if one assumes that there are substantial numbers of officers who will not be deterred by compensatory damages; only such officers will seek to guide their conduct by the punitive damages standard. The presence of such officers constitutes a powerful argument against raising the threshold for punitive damages.
In this case, the jury was instructed to apply a high standard of constitutional right (“physical abuse of such base, inhumane and barbaric proportions as to shock the sensibilities”). It was also instructed, under the principle of qualified immunity, that Smith could not be held liable at all unless he was guilty of “a callous indifference or a thoughtless disregard for the consequences of [his] act or failure to act,” or of “a flagrant or remarkably bad failure to protect” Wade. These instructions are not challenged in this Court, nor were they challenged on grounds of vagueness in the lower courts. Smith's contention that this recklessness standard is too vague to provide clear guidance and reasonable deterrence might more properly be reserved for a challenge seeking different standards of liability in the first instance. As for punitive damages, however, in the absence of any persuasive argument to the contrary based on the policies of § 1983, we are content to adopt the policy judgment of the common law — that reckless or callous disregard for the plaintiff’s rights, as well as intentional violations of federal law, should be sufficient to trigger a jury’s consideration of the appropriateness of punitive damages. See Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U. S. 144, 233 (1970) (Brennan, J., concurring and dissenting).
IV
Smith contends that even if § 1983 does not ordinarily require a showing of actual malicious intent for an award of punitive damages, such a showing should be required in this case. He argues that the deterrent and punitive purposes of punitive damages are served only if the threshold, for punitive damages is higher in every case than the underlying standard for liability in the first instance. In this case, while the District Judge did not use the same precise terms to explain the standards of liability for compensatory and punitive damages, the parties agree that there is no substantial difference between the showings required by the two instructions; both apply a standard of reckless or callous indifference to Wade’s rights. Hence, Smith argues, the District Judge erred in not requiring a higher standard for punitive damages, namely, actual malicious intent.
This argument incorrectly assumes that, simply because the instructions specified the same threshold of liability for punitive and compensatory damages, the two forms of damages were equally available to the plaintiff. The argument overlooks a key feature of punitive damages — that they are never awarded as of right, no matter how egregious the defendant’s conduct. “If the plaintiff proves sufficiently serious misconduct on the defendant’s part, the question whether to award punitive damages is left to the jury, which may or may not make such an award.” D. Dobbs, Law of Remedies 204 (1973) (footnote omitted). Compensatory damages, by contrast, are mandatory; once liability is found, the jury is required to award compensatory damages in an amount appropriate to compensate the plaintiff for his loss. Hence, it is not entirely accurate to say that punitive and compensatory damages were awarded in this, case on the same standard. To make its punitive award, the jury was required to find not only that Smith’s conduct met the recklessness threshold (a question of ultimate fact), but also that his conduct merited a punitive award of $5,000 in addition to the compensatory award (a discretionary moral judgment).
Moreover, the rules of ordinary tort law are once more against Smith’s argument. There has never been any general common-law rule that the threshold for punitive damages must always be higher than that for compensatory liability. On the contrary, both the First and Second Restatements of Torts have pointed out that “in torts like malicious prosecution that require a particular antisocial state of mind, the improper motive of the tortfeasor is both a necessary element in the cause of action and a reason for awarding punitive damages.” Accordingly, in situations where the standard for compensatory liability is as high as or higher than the usual threshold for punitive damages, most courts will permit awards of punitive damages without requiring any extra showing. Several courts have so held expressly. Many other courts, not directly addressing the congruence of compensatory and punitive thresholds, have held that punitive damages are available on the same showing of fault as is required by the underlying tort in, for example, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation of a public official or public figure, and defamation covered by a common-law qualified immunity.
This common-law rule makes sense in terms of the purposes of punitive damages. Punitive damages are awarded in the jury’s discretion “to punish [the defendant] for his outrageous conduct and to deter him and others like him from similar conduct in the future.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 908(1) (1979). The focus is on the character of the tortfeasor’s conduct — whether it is of the sort that calls for deterrence and punishment over and above that provided by compensatory awards. If it is of such a character, then it is appropriate to allow a jury to assess punitive damages; and that assessment does not become less appropriate simply because the plaintiff in the case faces a more demanding standard of actionability. To put it differently, society has an interest in deterring and punishing all intentional or reckless invasions of the rights of others, even though it sometimes chooses not to impose any liability for lesser degrees of fault.
As with his first argument, Smith gives us no good reason to depart from the common-law rule in the context of § 1983. He argues that too low a standard of exposure to punitive damages in cases such as this threatens to undermine the policies of his qualified immunity as a prison guard. The same reasoning would apply with at least as much force to, for example, the First Amendment and common-law immunities involved in the defamation cases described above. In any case, Smith overstates the extent of his immunity. Smith is protected from liability for mere negligence because of the need to protect his use of discretion in his day-to-day decisions in the running of a correctional facility. See generally Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U. S. 555 (1978); Wood v. Strickland, 420 U. S. 308 (1975). But the immunity on which Smith relies is coextensive with the interest it protects. The very fact that the privilege is qualified reflects a recognition that there is no societal interest in protecting those uses of a prison guard’s discretion that amount to reckless or callous indifference to the rights and safety of the prisoners in his charge. Once the protected sphere of privilege is exceeded, we see no reason why state officers should not be liable for their reckless misconduct on the same basis as private tortfeasors.
V
We hold that a jury may be permitted to assess punitive damages in an action under § 1983 when the defendant’s conduct is shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent, or when it involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others. We further hold that this threshold applies even when the underlying standard of liability for compensatory damages is one of recklessness. Because the jury instructions in this case are in accord with this rule, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Rev. Stat. § 1979, amended, 93 Stat. 1284. Section 1983 reads in relevant part:
“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.”
Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U. S. 325 (1983); Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U. S. 247 (1981); Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U. S. 555 (1978); Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976); Wood v. Strickland, 420 U. S. 308 (1975); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U. S. 232 (1974); Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 547 (1967); Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367 (1951).
Justice Rehnquist’s dissent faults us for referring to modern tort decisions in construing § 1983. Its argument rests on the unstated and unsupported premise that Congress necessarily intended to freeze into permanent law whatever principles were current in 1871, rather than to incorporate applicable general legal principles as they evolve. Post, at 65-68; see also post, at 92-93 (O’Connor, J., dissenting). The dissents are correct, of course, that when the language of the section and its legislative history provide no clear answer, we have found useful guidance in the law prevailing at the time when § 1983 was enacted; but it does not follow that that law is absolutely controlling, or that current law is irrelevant. On the contrary, if the prevailing view on some point of general tort law had changed substantially in the intervening century (which is not the case here), we might be highly reluctant to assume that Congress intended to perpetuate a now-obsolete doctrine. See Carey v. Piphus, 435 U. S. 247, 257-258 (1978) (“[O]ver the centuries the common law of torts has developed a set of rules to implement the principle that a person should be compensated fairly for injuries caused by the violation of his legal rights. These rules, defining the elements of damages and the prerequisites for their recovery, provide the appropriate starting point for the inquiry under § 1983 as well”) (footnote omitted); Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U. S. 144, 231-232 (1970) (Brennan, J., concurring and dissenting); Pierson, supra, at 555 (citing modern authority for “the prevailing view in this country’); Wood, supra, at 318-319, and n. 9; Tenney, supra, at 375, and n. 5. Indeed, in Imbler we recognized a common-law immunity that first came into existence 25 years after § 1983 was enacted, 424 U. S., at 421-422. Under the dissents’ view, Imbler was wrongly decided.
See, e. g., the cases cited in nn. 8 and 12, infra; Day v. Woodworth, 13 How. 363 (1852); Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co. v. Quigley, 21 How. 202 (1859); Milwaukee & St. Paul R. Co. v. Arms, 91 U. S. 489 (1876); Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Humes, 115 U. S. 512 (1885); Barry v. Edmunds, 116 U. S. 550 (1886); Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Beckwith, 129 U. S. 26 (1889); Scott v. Donald, 165 U. S. 58 (1897).
E. g., Nightingale v. Scannell, 18 Cal. 315, 324-326 (1861); Friend v. Hamill, 34 Md. 298, 314 (1871); Lynd v. Picket, 7 Minn. 184, 200-202 (1862); Parker v. Shackelford, 61 Mo. 68, 72 (1875); Rodgers v. Ferguson, 36 Tex. 544 (1871); see, e. g., Stinson v. Buisson, 17 La. 567, 572-573 (1841); Nagle v. Mullison, 34 Pa. 48 (1859); Von Storch v. Winslow, 13 R. I. 23, 24-25 (1880). Cf. Brewer v. Watson, 71 Ala. 299, 307 (1882). See also, e. g., Lane v. Yamamoto, 2 Haw. App. 176, 628 P. 2d 634 (1981); Wilson v. Eagan, 297 N. W. 2d 146, 148-150 (Minn. 1980).
In Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., supra, for example, we held that a municipality (as opposed to an individual defendant) is immune from liability for punitive damages under § 1983. A significant part of our reasoning was that deterrence of constitutional violations would be adequately accomplished by allowing punitive damages awards directly against the responsible individuals:
“Moreover, there is available a more effective means of deterrence. By allowing juries and courts to assess punitive damages in appropriate circumstances against the offending official, based on his personal financial resources, the statute [§ 1983] directly advances the public’s interest in preventing repeated constitutional deprivations. In our view, this provides sufficient protection against the prospect that a public official may commit recurrent constitutional violations by reason of his office.” Id., at 269-270 (footnote omitted).
Similarly, in Carlson v. Green, 446 U. S. 14 (1980), we stated that punitive damages would be available in an action against federal officials directly under the Eighth Amendment, partly on the reasoning that since such damages are available under § 1983, it would be anomalous to allow punitive awards against state officers but not federal ones. Id., at 22, and n. 9. See also Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., supra, at 233 (Brennan, J., concurring and dissenting); Carey v. Piphus, supra, at 257, n. 11; Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 421 U. S. 454, 460 (1975) (punitive damages available under 42 U. S. C. § 1981).
Justice Rehnquist’s dissent, without squarely denying that punitive damages are available under § 1983, does its best to cast doubt on the proposition. It argues that the phrase “for redress” at the end of the section means that Congress intended to limit recovery to compensatory damages. Post, at 85; see n. 1, supra. This novel construction is strained; a more plausible reading of the statute is that the phrase “or other proper proceeding for redress” is simply an expansive alternative to the preceding phrases “action at law” and “suit in equity,” intended to avoid any unwanted technical limitations that might lurk in the other phrases.
Next Justice Rehnquist points to two other statutes enacted in 1863 and 1870 that provided expressly for punitive remedies. Post, at 85-86. Neither of these statutes enacted a punitive damages remedy as such, although they did create other forms of punitive civil remedies. The Act of March 2, 1863, § 3, 12 Stat. 698, created a civil fine for fraudulent military claims, apparently intended to stimulate suit by private attorneys general. The Act of July 8, 1870, § 59, 16 Stat. 207, was the treble damages provision of the revised patent code. These statutes do not support Justice Rehnquist’s speculation that Congress acted expressly when it intended to approve punitive damages, since both statutes created new remedies not available at common law; moreover, they undercut his argument that Congress was hostile to punitive civil remedies in favor of private parties.
Finally, Justice Rehnquist argues that Congress would not likely have approved “this often-condemned doctrine” in the 1871 Civil Rights Act. Post, at 84. This speculation is remarkable, to say the least, given that Congress did approve a punitive civil remedy in an 1870 Civil Rights Act. Act of May 31, 1870, § 2, 16 Stat. 140 (creating private cause of action for fixed penalty on behalf of persons suffering racial discrimination in voting registration). Cf. 1889 Colo. Sess. Laws 64 (enacting punitive damages statute, including awards for “wanton and reckless disregard,” five years after state court held against doctrine). At any rate, the punitive damages debate, though lively, was by no means one-sided. See, e. g., Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Humes, supra, at 521-523; Linsley v. Bushnell, 15 Conn. 225, 235-237 (1842); Frink & Co. v. Coe, 4 Greene 555, 559-560 (Iowa 1854); Chiles v. Drake, 59 Ky. 146, 152-153 (1859); Lynd v. Picket, supra, at 200-201; Taylor v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 48 N. H. 304, 320 (1869), overruled, Fay v. Parker, 53 N. H. 342 (1872); Mayer v. Frobe, 40 W. Va. 246, 22 S. E. 58 (1895); Cosgriff Brothers v. Miller, 10 Wyo. 190, 236-237, 68 P. 206, 216-217 (1902). See also Tillotson v. Cheetham, 3 Johns. 56, 63-64 (N. Y. 1808) (Kent, C. J.).
Smith uses the term “actual malice” to refer to the standard he would apply. While the term may be an appropriate one, we prefer not to use it, simply to avoid the confusion and ambiguity that surrounds the word “malice.” See n. 8, infra. Indeed, as Smith recognizes, this Court has used the very term “actual malice” in the defamation context to refer to a recklessness standard. Brief for Petitioner 8-9; see Cantrell v. Forest City Publishing Co., 419 U. S. 245, 251-252 (1974); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 280 (1964).
We note in passing that it appears quite uncertain whether even Justice Rehnquist’s dissent ultimately agrees with Smith’s view that “ill will, spite, or intent to injure” should be required to allow punitive damages awards. Justice Rehnquist consistently confuses, and attempts to blend together, the quite distinct concepts of intent to cause injury, on one hand, and subjective consciousness of risk of injury (or of unlawfulness) on the other. For instance, his dissent purports,to base its analysis on the “fundamental distinction” between “wrongful motive, actual intention to inflict harm or intentional doing of an act known to be unlawful,” versus “very careless or negligent conduct,” post, at 60-61 (emphasis added). Yet in the same paragraph, the dissent inaccurately recharacterizes the first element of this distinction as “acts that are intentionally harmful,” requiring “inquiry into the actor’s subjective motive and purpose.” Post, at 63-64. Consciousness of consequences or of wrongdoing, of course, does not require injurious intent or motive; it is equally consistent with indifference toward or disregard for consequences. This confusion of standards continues throughout the opinion. Justice Rehnquist’s dissent frequently uses such phrases as “intent to injure” or “evil motive”; yet at several points it refers more broadly to “subjective
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice GINSBURG delivered the opinion of the Court.
Impelling prompt registration of copyright claims, 17 U.S.C. § 411(a) states that "no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until ... registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title." The question this case presents: Has "registration ... been made in accordance with [Title 17]" as soon as the claimant delivers the required application, copies of the work, and fee to the Copyright Office; or has "registration ... been made" only after the Copyright Office reviews and registers the copyright? We hold, in accord with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, that registration occurs, and a copyright claimant may commence an infringement suit, when the Copyright Office registers a copyright. Upon registration of the copyright, however, a copyright owner can recover for infringement that occurred both before and after registration.
Petitioner Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corporation (Fourth Estate) is a news organization producing online journalism. Fourth Estate licensed journalism works to respondent Wall-Street.com, LLC (Wall-Street), a news website. The license agreement required Wall-Street to remove from its website all content produced by Fourth Estate before canceling the agreement. Wall-Street canceled, but continued to display articles produced by Fourth Estate. Fourth Estate sued Wall-Street and its owner, Jerrold Burden, for copyright infringement. The complaint alleged that Fourth Estate had filed "applications to register [the] articles [licensed to Wall-Street] with the Register of Copyrights." App. to Pet. for Cert. 18a. Because the Register had not yet acted on Fourth Estate's applications, the District Court, on Wall-Street and Burden's motion, dismissed the complaint, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. 856 F.3d 1338 (2017). Thereafter, the Register of Copyrights refused registration of the articles Wall-Street had allegedly infringed.
We granted Fourth Estate's petition for certiorari to resolve a division among U.S. Courts of Appeals on when registration occurs in accordance with § 411(a). 585 U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 2707, 201 L.Ed.2d 1095 (2018). Compare, e.g., 856 F.3d at 1341 (case below) (registration has been made under § 411(a) when the Register of Copyrights registers a copyright), with, e.g., Cosmetic Ideas, Inc. v. IAC/Interactivecorp, 606 F.3d 612, 621 (C.A.9 2010) (registration has been made under § 411(a) when the copyright claimant's "complete application" for registration is received by the Copyright Office).
I
Under the Copyright Act of 1976, as amended, copyright protection attaches to "original works of authorship"-prominent among them, literary, musical, and dramatic works-"fixed in any tangible medium of expression." 17 U.S.C. § 102(a). An author gains "exclusive rights" in her work immediately upon the work's creation, including rights of reproduction, distribution, and display. See § 106 ; Eldred v. Ashcroft , 537 U.S. 186, 195, 123 S.Ct. 769, 154 L.Ed.2d 683 (2003) ("[F]ederal copyright protection ... run[s] from the work's creation."). The Copyright Act entitles a copyright owner to institute a civil action for infringement of those exclusive rights. § 501(b).
Before pursuing an infringement claim in court, however, a copyright claimant generally must comply with § 411(a)'s requirement that "registration of the copyright claim has been made." § 411(a). Therefore, although an owner's rights exist apart from registration, see § 408(a), registration is akin to an administrative exhaustion requirement that the owner must satisfy before suing to enforce ownership rights, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 35.
In limited circumstances, copyright owners may file an infringement suit before undertaking registration. If a copyright owner is preparing to distribute a work of a type vulnerable to predistribution infringement-notably, a movie or musical composition-the owner may apply for preregistration. § 408(f)(2) ; 37 CFR § 202.16(b)(1) (2018). The Copyright Office will "conduct a limited review" of the application and notify the claimant "[u]pon completion of the preregistration." § 202.16(c)(7), (c)(10). Once "preregistration ... has been made," the copyright claimant may institute a suit for infringement. 17 U.S.C. § 411(a). Preregistration, however, serves only as "a preliminary step prior to a full registration." Preregistration of Certain Unpublished Copyright Claims, 70 Fed. Reg. 42286 (2005). An infringement suit brought in reliance on preregistration risks dismissal unless the copyright owner applies for registration promptly after the preregistered work's publication or infringement. § 408(f)(3)-(4). A copyright owner may also sue for infringement of a live broadcast before "registration ... has been made," but faces dismissal of her suit if she fails to "make registration for the work" within three months of its first transmission. § 411(c). Even in these exceptional scenarios, then, the copyright owner must eventually pursue registration in order to maintain a suit for infringement.
II
All parties agree that, outside of statutory exceptions not applicable here, § 411(a) bars a copyright owner from suing for infringement until "registration ... has been made." Fourth Estate and Wall-Street dispute, however, whether "registration ... has been made" under § 411(a) when a copyright owner submits the application, materials, and fee required for registration, or only when the Copyright Office grants registration. Fourth Estate advances the former view-the "application approach"-while Wall-Street urges the latter reading-the "registration approach." The registration approach, we conclude, reflects the only satisfactory reading of § 411(a)'s text. We therefore reject Fourth Estate's application approach.
A
Under § 411(a), "registration ... has been made," and a copyright owner may sue for infringement, when the Copyright Office registers a copyright. Section 411(a)'s first sentence provides that no civil infringement action "shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made." The section's next sentence sets out an exception to this rule: When the required "deposit, application, and fee ... have been delivered to the Copyright Office in proper form and registration has been refused," the claimant "[may] institute a civil action, if notice thereof ... is served on the Register." Read together, § 411(a)'s opening sentences focus not on the claimant's act of applying for registration, but on action by the Copyright Office-namely, its registration or refusal to register a copyright claim.
If application alone sufficed to "ma[ke]" registration, § 411(a)'s second sentence-allowing suit upon refusal of registration-would be superfluous. What utility would that allowance have if a copyright claimant could sue for infringement immediately after applying for registration without awaiting the Register's decision on her application? Proponents of the application approach urge that § 411(a)'s second sentence serves merely to require a copyright claimant to serve "notice [of an infringement suit] ... on the Register." See Brief for Petitioner 29-32. This reading, however, requires the implausible assumption that Congress gave "registration" different meanings in consecutive, related sentences within a single statutory provision. In § 411(a)'s first sentence, "registration" would mean the claimant's act of filing an application, while in the section's second sentence, "registration" would entail the Register's review of an application. We resist this improbable construction. See, e.g., Mid-Con Freight Systems, Inc. v. Michigan Pub. Serv. Comm'n , 545 U.S. 440, 448, 125 S.Ct. 2427, 162 L.Ed.2d 418 (2005) (declining to read "the same words" in consecutive sentences as "refer[ring] to something totally different").
The third and final sentence of § 411(a) further persuades us that the provision requires action by the Register before a copyright claimant may sue for infringement. The sentence allows the Register to "become a party to the action with respect to the issue of registrability of the copyright claim." This allowance would be negated, and the court conducting an infringement suit would lack the benefit of the Register's assessment, if an infringement suit could be filed and resolved before the Register acted on an application.
Other provisions of the Copyright Act support our reading of "registration," as used in § 411(a), to mean action by the Register. Section 410 states that, "after examination," if the Register determines that "the material deposited constitutes copyrightable subject matter" and "other legal and formal requirements ... [are] met, the Register shall register the claim and issue to the applicant a certificate of registration." § 410(a). But if the Register determines that the deposited material "does not constitute copyrightable subject matter or that the claim is invalid for any other reason, the Register shall refuse registration." § 410(b). Section 410 thus confirms that application is discrete from, and precedes, registration. Section 410(d), furthermore, provides that if the Copyright Office registers a claim, or if a court later determines that a refused claim was registrable, the "effective date of [the work's] copyright registration is the day on which" the copyright owner made a proper submission to the Copyright Office. There would be no need thus to specify the "effective date of a copyright registration" if submission of the required materials qualified as "registration."
Section 408(f)'s preregistration option, too, would have little utility if a completed application constituted registration. Preregistration, as noted supra, at 887 - 888, allows the author of a work vulnerable to predistribution infringement to enforce her exclusive rights in court before obtaining registration or refusal thereof. A copyright owner who fears prepublication infringement would have no reason to apply for preregistration, however, if she could instead simply complete an application for registration and immediately commence an infringement suit. Cf. TRW Inc. v. Andrews , 534 U.S. 19, 29, 122 S.Ct. 441, 151 L.Ed.2d 339 (2001) (rejecting an interpretation that "would in practical effect render [a provision] superfluous in all but the most unusual circumstances").
B
Challenging the Eleventh Circuit's judgment, Fourth Estate primarily contends that the Copyright Act uses "the phrase 'make registration' and its passive-voice counterpart 'registration has been made' " to describe submissions by the copyright owner, rather than Copyright Office responses to those submissions. Brief for Petitioner 21. Section 411(a)'s requirement that "registration ... has been made in accordance with this title," Fourth Estate insists, most likely refers to a copyright owner's compliance with the statutory specifications for registration applications. In support, Fourth Estate points to Copyright Act provisions that appear to use the phrase "make registration" or one of its variants to describe what a copyright claimant does. See id ., at 22-26 (citing 17 U.S.C. §§ 110, 205(c), 408(c)(3), 411(c), 412(2) ). Furthermore, Fourth Estate urges that its reading reflects the reality that, eventually, the vast majority of applications are granted. See Brief for Petitioner 41.
Fourth Estate acknowledges, however, that the Copyright Act sometimes uses "registration" to refer to activity by the Copyright Office, not activity undertaken by a copyright claimant. See id. , at 27-28 (citing 17 U.S.C. § 708(a) ). Fourth Estate thus agrees that, to determine how the statute uses the word "registration" in a particular prescription, one must "look to the specific context" in which the term is used. Brief for Petitioner 29. As explained supra, at 888 - 890, the "specific context" of § 411(a) permits only one sensible reading: The phrase "registration ... has been made" refers to the Copyright Office's act granting registration, not to the copyright claimant's request for registration.
Fourth Estate's contrary reading of § 411(a) stems in part from its misapprehension of the significance of certain 1976 revisions to the Copyright Act. Before that year, § 411(a)'s precursor provided that "[n]o action or proceeding shall be maintained for infringement of copyright in any work until the provisions of this title with respect to the deposit of copies and registration of such work shall have been complied with." 17 U.S.C. § 13 (1970 ed.). Fourth Estate urges that this provision posed the very question we resolve today-namely, whether a claimant's application alone effects registration. The Second Circuit addressed that question, Fourth Estate observes, in Vacheron & Constantin-Le Coultre Watches, Inc. v. Benrus Watch Co. , 260 F.2d 637 (1958). Brief for Petitioner 32-34. In that case, in an opinion by Judge Learned Hand, the court held that a copyright owner who completed an application could not sue for infringement immediately upon the Copyright Office's refusal to register. Vacheron , 260 F.2d at 640-641. Instead, the owner first had to obtain a registration certificate by bringing a mandamus action against the Register. The Second Circuit dissenter would have treated the owner's application as sufficient to permit commencement of an action for infringement. Id., at 645.
Fourth Estate sees Congress' 1976 revision of the registration requirement as an endorsement of the Vacheron dissenter's position. Brief for Petitioner 34-36. We disagree. The changes made in 1976 instead indicate Congress' agreement with Judge Hand that it is the Register's action that triggers a copyright owner's entitlement to sue. In enacting 17 U.S.C. § 411(a), Congress both reaffirmed the general rule that registration must precede an infringement suit, and added an exception in that provision's second sentence to cover instances in which registration is refused. See H. R. Rep. No. 94-1476, p. 157 (1976). That exception would have no work to do if, as Fourth Estate urges, Congress intended the 1976 revisions to clarify that a copyright claimant may sue immediately upon applying for registration. A copyright claimant would need no statutory authorization to sue after refusal of her application if she could institute suit as soon as she has filed the application.
Noteworthy, too, in years following the 1976 revisions, Congress resisted efforts to eliminate § 411(a) and the registration requirement embedded in it. In 1988, Congress removed foreign works from § 411(a)'s dominion in order to comply with the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works' bar on copyright formalities for such works. See § 9(b)(1), 102 Stat. 2859. Despite proposals to repeal § 411(a)'s registration requirement entirely, however, see S. Rep. No. 100-352, p. 36 (1988), Congress maintained the requirement for domestic works, see § 411(a). Subsequently, in 1993, Congress considered, but declined to adopt, a proposal to allow suit immediately upon submission of a registration application. See H. R. Rep. No. 103-338, p. 4 (1993). And in 2005, Congress made a preregistration option available for works vulnerable to predistribution infringement. See Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act of 2005, § 104, 119 Stat. 221. See also supra, at 887 - 888. Congress chose that course in face of calls to eliminate registration in cases of predistribution infringement. 70 Fed. Reg. 42286. Time and again, then, Congress has maintained registration as prerequisite to suit, and rejected proposals that would have eliminated registration or tied it to the copyright claimant's application instead of the Register's action.
Fourth Estate additionally argues that, as "registration is not a condition of copyright protection," 17 U.S.C. § 408(a), § 411(a) should not be read to bar a copyright claimant from enforcing that protection in court once she has submitted a proper application for registration. Brief for Petitioner 37. But as explained supra, at 887 - 888, the Copyright Act safeguards copyright owners, irrespective of registration, by vesting them with exclusive rights upon creation of their works and prohibiting infringement from that point forward. If infringement occurs before a copyright owner applies for registration, that owner may eventually recover damages for the past infringement, as well as the infringer's profits. § 504. She must simply apply for registration and receive the Copyright Office's decision on her application before instituting suit. Once the Register grants or refuses registration, the copyright owner may also seek an injunction barring the infringer from continued violation of her exclusive rights and an order requiring the infringer to destroy infringing materials. §§ 502, 503(b).
Fourth Estate maintains, however, that if infringement occurs while the Copyright Office is reviewing a registration application, the registration approach will deprive the owner of her rights during the waiting period. Brief for Petitioner 41.
See also 1 P. Goldstein, Copyright § 3.15, p. 3:154.2 (3d ed. 2018 Supp.) (finding application approach "the better rule"); 2 M. Nimmer & D. Nimmer, Copyright § 7.16[B][3][a], [b][ii] (2018) (infringement suit is conditioned on application, while prima facie presumption of validity depends on certificate of registration). The Copyright Act's explicit carveouts from § 411(a)'s general registration rule, however, show that Congress adverted to this concern. In the preregistration option, § 408(f), Congress provided that owners of works especially susceptible to prepublication infringement should be allowed to institute suit before the Register has granted or refused registration. See § 411(a). Congress made the same determination as to live broadcasts. § 411(c) ; see supra, at 888. As to all other works, however, § 411(a)'s general rule requires owners to await action by the Register before filing suit for infringement.
Fourth Estate raises the specter that a copyright owner may lose the ability to enforce her rights if the Copyright Act's three-year statute of limitations runs out before the Copyright Office acts on her application for registration. Brief for Petitioner 41. Fourth Estate's fear is overstated, as the average processing time for registration applications is currently seven months, leaving ample time to sue after the Register's decision, even for infringement that began before submission of an application. See U.S. Copyright Office, Registration Processing Times (Oct. 2, 2018) (Registration Processing Times), https://www.copyright.gov/ registration/docs/processing-times-faqs.pdf (as last visited Mar. 1, 2019).
True, the statutory scheme has not worked as Congress likely envisioned. Registration processing times have increased from one or two weeks in 1956 to many months today. See GAO, Improving Productivity in Copyright Registration 3 (GAO-AFMD-83-13 1982); Registration Processing Times. Delays in Copyright Office processing of applications, it appears, are attributable, in large measure, to staffing and budgetary shortages that Congress can alleviate, but courts cannot cure. See 5 W. Patry, Copyright § 17:83 (2019). Unfortunate as the current administrative lag may be, that factor does not allow us to revise § 411(a)'s congressionally composed text.
* * *
For the reasons stated, we conclude that "registration ... has been made" within the meaning of 17 U.S.C. § 411(a) not when an application for registration is filed, but when the Register has registered a copyright after examining a properly filed application. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is accordingly
Affirmed.
The Register of Copyrights is the "director of the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress" and is appointed by the Librarian of Congress. 17 U.S.C. § 701(a). The Copyright Act delegates to the Register "[a]ll administrative functions and duties under [Title 17]." Ibid.
Consideration of Fourth Estate's filings was initially delayed because the check Fourth Estate sent in payment of the filing fee was rejected by Fourth Estate's bank as uncollectible. App. to Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 1a.
The merits of the Copyright Office's decision refusing registration are not at issue in this Court.
Section 411(a) provides, in principal part: "[N]o civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title. In any case, however, where the deposit, application, and fee required for registration have been delivered to the Copyright Office in proper form and registration has been refused, the applicant is entitled to institute a civil action for infringement if notice thereof, with a copy of the complaint, is served on the Register of Copyrights. The Register may, at his or her option, become a party to the action with respect to the issue of registrability of the copyright claim ...."
Fourth Estate asserts that, if a copyright owner encounters a lengthy delay in the Copyright Office, she may be forced to file a mandamus action to compel the Register to rule on her application, the very problem exposed in Vacheron & Constantin-Le Coultre Watches, Inc. v. Benrus Watch Co. , 260 F.2d 637 (C.A.2 1958), see supra, at 890. But Congress' answer to Vacheron , codified in § 411(a)'s second sentence, was to permit an infringement suit upon refusal of registration, not to eliminate Copyright Office action as the trigger for an infringement suit.
Further, in addition to the Act's provisions for preregistration suit, the Copyright Office allows copyright claimants to seek expedited processing of a claim for an additional $ 800 fee. See U.S. Copyright Office, Special Handling: Circular No. 10, pp. 1-2 (2017). The Copyright Office grants requests for special handling in situations involving, inter alia , "[p]ending or prospective litigation," and "make[s] every attempt to examine the application ... within five working days." Compendium of U.S. Copyright Practices § 623.2, 623.4 (3d ed. 2017).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This action for treble damages and injunctive relief, brought under § 4 of the Clayton Act, tests the application of the antitrust laws to the business of professional football. Petitioner Radovich, an all-pro guard formerly with the Detroit Lions, contends that the respondents entered into a conspiracy to monopolize and control organized professional football in the United States, in violation of §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act; that part of the conspiracy was to destroy the All-America Conference, a competitive professional football league in which Radovich once played; and that pursuant to agreement, respondents boycotted Radovich and prevented him from becoming a player-coach in the Pacific Coast League. Petitioner alleges that respondents’ illegal conduct damaged him in the sum of $35,000, to be trebled as provided by the Act. The trial court, on respondents’ motion, dismissed the cause for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The Court of Appeals affirmed, 231 F. 2d 620, on the basis of Federal Baseball Club v. National League, 259 U. S. 200 (1922), and Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc., 346 U. S. 356 (1953), applying the baseball rule to all “team sports.” It further found that even if such application was erroneous and that United States v. International Boxing Club, 348 U. S. 236 (1955), applied, Radovich had not grounded his claim on conduct of respondents which was “calculated to prejudice the public or unreasonably restrain interstate commerce.” 231 F. 2d, at 623. We granted certiorari, 352 U. S. 818, in order to clarify the application of the Toolson doctrine and determine whether the business of football comes within the scope of the Sherman Act. For the reasons hereafter stated we conclude that Toolson and Federal Baseball do not control; that the respondents’ activities as alleged are within the coverage of the antitrust laws; and that the complaint states a cause of action thereunder.
I.
Since the complaint was dismissed its allegations must be taken by us as true. It is, therefore, important for us to consider what Radovich alleged. Concisely the complaint states that:
1. Radovich began his professional football career in 1938 when he signed with the Detroit Lions, a National League club. After four seasons of play he entered the Navy, returning to the Lions for the 1945 season. In 1946 he asked for a transfer to a National League club in Los Angeles because of the illness of his father. The Lions refused the transfer and Radovich broke his player contract by signing with and playing the 1946 and 1947 seasons for the Los Angeles Dons, a member of the All-America Conference. In 1948 the San Francisco Clippers, a member of the Pacific Coast League which was affiliated with but not a competitor of the National League, offered to employ Radovich as a player-coach. However, the National League advised that Radovich was black-listed and any affiliated club signing him would suffer severe penalties. The Clippers then refused to sign him in any position. This black-listing effectively prevented his employment in organized professional football in the United States.
2. The black-listing was the result of a conspiracy among the respondents to monopolize commerce in professional football among the States. The purpose of the conspiracy was to “control, regulate and dictate the terms upon which organized professional football shall be played throughout the United States” in violation of §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. It was part of the conspiracy to boycott the All-America Conference and its players with a view to its destruction and thus strengthen the monopolistic position of the National Football League.
3. As part of its football business, the respondent league and its member teams schedule football games in various metropolitan centers, including New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles. Each team uses a standard player contract which prohibits a player from signing with another club without the consent of the club holding the player’s contract. These contracts are enforced by agreement of the clubs to black-list any player violating them and to visit severe penalties on recalcitrant member clubs. As a further “part of the business of professional football itself” and “directly tied in and connected” with its football exhibitions is the transmission of the games over radio and television into nearly every State of the Union. This is accomplished by contracts which produce a “significant portion of the gross receipts” and without which “the business of operating a professional football club would not be profitable.” The playing of the exhibitions themselves “is essential to the interstate transmission by broadcasting and television” and the actions of the respondents against Radovich were necessarily related to these interstate activities.
In the light of these allegations respondents raise two issues: They say the business of organized professional football was not intended by Congress to be included within the scope of the antitrust laws; and, if wrong in this contention, that the complaint does not state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted.
II.
Respondents’ contention, boiled down, is that agreements similar to those complained of here, which have for many years been used in organized baseball, have been held by this Court to be outside the scope of the antitrust laws. They point to Federal Baseball and Toolson, supra, both involving the business of professional baseball, asserting that professional football has embraced the same techniques which existed in baseball at the time of the former decision. They contend that stare decisis compels the same result here. True, the umbrella under which respondents hope to stand is not so large as that contended for in United States v. International Boxing Club, supra, nor in United States v. Shubert, 348 U. S. 222 (1955). There we were asked to extend Federal Baseball to boxing and the theater. Here respondents say that the contracts and sanctions which baseball and football find it necessary to impose have no counterpart in other businesses and that, therefore, they alone are outside the ambit of the Sherman Act. In Toolson we continued to hold the umbrella over baseball that was placed there some 31 years earlier by Federal Baseball. The Court did this because it was concluded that more harm would be done in overruling Federal Baseball than in upholding a ruling which at best was of dubious validity. Vast efforts had gone into the development and organization of baseball since that decision and enormous capital had been invested in reliance on its permanence. Congress had chosen to make no change. All this, combined with the flood of litigation that would follow its repudiation, the harassment that would ensue, and the retroactive effect of such a decision, led the Court to the practical result that it should sustain the unequivocal line of authority reaching over many years.
The Court was careful to restrict Toolson’s coverage to baseball, following the judgment of Federal Baseball only so far as it “determines that Congress had no intention of including the business of baseball within the scope of the federal antitrust laws.” 346 U. S., at 357. The Court reiterated this in United States v. Shubert, supra, at 230, where it said, “In short, Toolson was a narrow application of the rule of stare decisis.” And again, in International Boxing Club, it added, “Toolson neither overruled Federal Baseball nor necessarily reaffirmed all that was said in Federal Baseball. . . . Toolson is not authority for exempting other businesses merely because of the circumstance that they are also based on the performance of local exhibitions.” 348 U. S., at 242. Furthermore, in discussing the impact of the Federal Baseball decision, the Court made the observation that that decision “could not be relied upon as a basis of exemption for other segments of the entertainment business, athletic or otherwise. . . . The controlling consideration in Federal Baseball . . . was . . . the degree of interstate activity involved in the particular business under review.” Id., at 242-243. It seems that this language would have made it clear that the Court intended to isolate these cases by limiting them to baseball, but since Toolson and Federal Baseball are still cited as controlling authority in antitrust actions involving other fields of business, we now specifically limit the rule there established to the facts there involved, i. e., the business of organized professional baseball. As long as the Congress continues to acquiesce we should adhere to — but not extend — the interpretation of the Act made in those cases. We did not extend them to boxing or the theater because we believed that the volume of interstate business in each — the rationale of Federal Baseball — was such that both activities were within the Act. Likewise, the volume of interstate business involved in organized professional football places it within the provisions of the Act.
If this ruling is unrealistic, inconsistent, or illogical, it is sufficient to answer, aside from the distinctions between the businesses, that were we considering the question of baseball for the first time upon a clean slate we would have no doubts. But Federal Baseball held the business of baseball outside the scope of the Act. No other business claiming the coverage of those cases has such an adjudication. We, therefore, conclude that the orderly way to eliminate error or discrimination, if any there be, is by legislation and not by court decision. Congressional processes are more accommodative, affording the whole industry hearings and an opportunity to assist in the formulation of new legislation. The resulting product is therefore more likely to protect the industry and the public alike. The whole scope of congressional action would be known long in advance and effective dates for the legislation could be set in the future without the injustices of retroactivity and surprise which might follow court action. Of course, the doctrine of Toolson and Federal Baseball must yield to any congressional action and continues only at its sufferance. This is not a new approach. See Davis v. Department of Labor, 317 U. S. 249, 255 (1942); Compare Rutkin v. United States, 343 U. S. 130 (1952).
III.
We now turn to the sufficiency of the complaint. At the outset the allegations of the nature and extent of interstate commerce seem to be sufficient. In addition to the standard allegations, a specific claim is made that radio and television transmission is a significant, integral part of the respondents’ business, even to the extent of being the difference between a profit and a loss. Unlike International Boxing, the complaint alleges no definite percentage in this regard. However, the amount must be substantial and can easily be brought out in the proof. If substantial, as alleged, it alone is sufficient to meet the commerce requirements of the Act. See International Boxing, supra, at 241.
Likewise, we find the technical objections to the pleading without merit. The test as to sufficiency laid down by Mr. Justice Holmes in Hart v. B. F. Keith Vaudeville Exchange, 262 U. S. 271, 274 (1923), is whether “the claim is wholly frivolous.” While the complaint might have been more precise in its allegations concerning the purpose and effect of the conspiracy, “we are not prepared to say that nothing can be extracted from this bill that falls under the act of Congress . . . .” Id., at 274. See also United States v. Employing Plasterers Assn., 347 U. S. 186 (1954).
Petitioner’s claim need only be “tested under the Sherman Act’s general prohibition on unreasonable restraints of trade,” Times-Picayune Publishing Co. v. United States, 345 U. S. 594, 614 (1953), and meet the requirement that petitioner has thereby suffered injury. Congress has, by legislative fiat, determined that such prohibited activities are injurious to the public and has provided sanctions allowing private enforcement of the antitrust laws by an aggrieved party. These laws protect the victims of the forbidden practices as well as the public. Mandeville Island Farms, Inc. v. American Crystal Sugar Co., 334 U. S. 219, 236 (1948). Furthermore, Congress itself has placed the private antitrust litigant in a most favorable position through the enactment of § 5 of the Clayton Act. Emich Motors Corp. v. General Motors Corp., 340 U. S. 558 (1951). In the face of such a policy this Court should not add requirements to burden the private litigant beyond what is specifically set forth by Congress in those laws.
Respondents’ remaining contentions we believe to be lacking in merit.
We think that Radovich is entitled to an opportunity to prove his charges. Of course, we express no opinion as to whether or not respondents have, in fact, violated the antitrust laws, leaving that determination to the trial court after all the facts are in.
Reversed.
38 Stat. 731, 15 U. S. C. § 15, reads as follows:
“Sec. 4. That any person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws may sue therefor in any district court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or is found or has an agent, without respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained, and the cost of suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.”
Injunctive relief is provided for by 38 Stat. 737, 15 U. S. C. § 26.
The respondents include the National Football League; its 10 member clubs at the time the complaint was filed: Boston Yanks, New York Giants, Philadelphia Eagles, Los Angeles Rams, Pittsburgh Steelers, Washington Redskins, Chicago Bears, Chicago Cardinals, Detroit Lions, and Green Bay Packers; the now defunct Pacific Coast League; the San Francisco Clippers, a member of the Pacific Coast League; Bert Bell, Commissioner of the National Football League; and J. Rufus Klawans, Commissioner of the Pacific Coast League.
26 Stat. 209, 15 U. S. C. § 1, reads in pertinent part:
“Sec. 1. Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States ... is hereby declared to be illegal. . . .”
26 Stat. 209, 15 U. S. C. § 2, reads in pertinent part:
“Sec. 2. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States . . . shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor . . .
This Conference operated from 1946 through 1949 at which time it was disbanded.
No contention is made that the business of professional football has any specific exemption from the antitrust laws.
Since this action was dismissed on the pleadings, there has been no factual determination establishing the claimed similarity between the businesses of baseball and football.
Congress did consider the extension of the baseball rule to other sports. In 1951 four separate bills were introduced to exempt organized professional sports from the antitrust laws. None of them were enacted. See H. R. 4229, 4230, 4231, and S. 1526, 82d Cong., 1st Sess. (1951).
Consideration of basic differences, if any, between the baseball and football businesses, such as the football draft system, use of league affiliations, training facilities and techniques, etc., is not necessary to this decision.
The concurring opinion uses this language: “Such a desirable end cannot now be achieved merely by judicial repudiation of the Jensen doctrine.” 317 U. S., at 259.
In Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader, 310 U. S. 469 (1940), this Court said: “The end sought was the prevention of restraints to free competition in business and commercial transactions which tended to restrict production, raise prices or otherwise control the market to the detriment of purchasers or consumers of goods and services, all of which had come to be regarded as a special form of public injury.” (Emphasis supplied.) Id., at 493. In Standard Sanitary Mfg. Co. v. United States, 226 U. S. 20 (1912), speaking of the antitrust laws, the Court said: “The law is its own measure of right and wrong, of what it permits, or forbids, and the judgment of the courts cannot be set up against it in a supposed accommodation of its policy with the good intention of parties, and it may be, of some good results.” (Emphasis supplied.) Id., at 49.
38 Stat. 731, 15 U. S. C. § 16, declares that a final judgment against a defendant in proceedings by the Government for violation of the antitrust laws may be introduced by a private litigant in a subsequent treble damage action and establishes prima facie a violation of the antitrust laws.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 1940, Bullington, a citizen of Virginia, sold land in Virginia to Angel, a citizen of North Carolina. Only part of the purchase price was paid. For the balance, Angel executed a series of notes secured by a deed of trust on the land. Upon default on one of the notes, Bullington, acting upon an acceleration clause in the deed, caused all other notes to become due and called upon the trustees to sell the land. The sale was duly made in Virginia and the proceeds of the sale applied to the payment of the notes. This controversy concerns attempts to collect the deficiency.
Bullington began suit for the deficiency in the Superior Court of Macon County, North Carolina. Angel countered with a demurrer, the substance of which was that a statute of North Carolina (c. 36, Public Laws 1933, Michie’s Code § 2593 (f)) precluded recovery of such a deficiency judgment. This is the relevant portion of that enactment:
“In all sales of real property by mortgagees and/or trustees under powers of sale contained in any mortgage or deed of trust hereafter executed, . . . the mortgagee or trustee or holder of the notes secured by such mortgage or deed of trust shall not be entitled to a deficiency judgment on account of such mortgage, deed of trust or obligation secured by the same: . . . .”
The Superior Court overruled the demurrer, and an appeal to the Supreme Court of North Carolina followed. Bullington supported his Superior Court judgment on the ground that the United States Constitution precluded North Carolina from shutting the doors of its courts to him. The North Carolina Supreme Court, holding that the North Carolina Act of 1933 barred Bullington’s suit against Angel, reversed the Superior Court and dismissed the action. 220 N. C. 18, 16 S. E. 2d 411. Bullington did not seek to review this judgment here. Instead, he sued Angel for the deficiency in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. Angel pleaded in bar the judgment in the North Carolina action. The District Court gave judgment for Bullington, 56 F. Supp. 372, and the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. 150 F. 2d 679. We granted certiorari, 326 U. S. 713, because the failure to dismiss this action, on the ground that the judgment in the North Carolina court precluded the right thereafter to recover on the same cause of action in the federal court, presented an important question in the administration of justice.
1. We start with the fact that the prevailing rule as to res judicata is settled law in North Carolina. An adjudication bars future litigation between the same parties not only as to all issues actually raised and decided but also as to those which could have been raised. Southern Distributing Co. v. Carraway, 196 N. C. 58, 60-61, 144 S. E. 535, 537; Moore v. Harkins, 179 N. C. 167, 101 S. E. 564. When the disposition of a prior litigation is invoked as a bar to an action, the identity of the causes of action in the two suits is usually the bone of contention. On this score there can here be no controversy. It is indisputable that the parties, the nature of the claim and the desired relief were precisely the same in the two actions successively brought by Bullington against Angel, first in the Superior Court of Macon County and then in the federal district court. For all practical purposes, the complaint in the present action was a carbon copy of the complaint in the State court action. If the North Carolina action had been dismissed because it was brought in one North Carolina court rather than in another, of course no federal issue would have been involved. See, e. g., Woods v. Nierstheimer, 328 U. S. 211. Had that been the case, a suit for the same cause of action could have been initiated in a North Carolina federal district court, just as another suit could have been brought in the proper North Carolina State court. But that is not the present situation. A quite different situation is before us. Being somewhat unusual, it calls for a critical consideration of the scope and purpose of the doctrine of res judicata.
2. The judgment of the Supreme Court of North Carolina would clearly bar this suit had it been brought anew in a state court. For purposes of diversity jurisdiction a federal court is, “in effect, only another court of the State.” Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U. S. 99, 108; see Traction Company v. Mining Company, 196 U. S. 239, 253; Ex parte Schollenberger, 96 U. S. 369, 377. Of course, Bullington could not have succeeded in the District Court for the Western District of North Carolina after an adverse judgment in the State courts, had the decision in this case involved no federal ground. That is equally true where a federal question was decided in the State courts. That the adjudication of federal questions by the North Carolina Supreme Court may have been erroneous is immaterial for purposes of res judicata. Baltimore S. S. Co. v. Phillips, 274 U. S. 316, 325. A higher court was available for an authoritative adjudication of the federal questions involved. And so the question is whether federal rights were necessarily involved and adjudicated in the litigation in the State courts.
3. For purposes of res judicata, the significance of what a court says it decides is controlled by the issues that were open for decision. What were the issues in the North Carolina litigation? Bullington sought a deficiency judgment. Angel, by demurrer, resisted on the ground that a North Carolina statute precluded a deficiency judgment. The North Carolina Supreme Court, reversing the trial court, found the North Carolina statute a bar to such a suit. It said that
“the limitation created by the statute is upon the jurisdiction of the court in that it is declared that the holder of notes given to secure the purchase price of real property 'shall not be entitled to a deficiency judgment on account’ thereof. This closes the courts of this State to one who seeks a deficiency judgment on a note given for the purchase price of real property. The statute operates upon the adjective law of the State, which pertains to the practice and procedure, or legal machinery by which the substantive law is made effective, and not upon the substantive law itself. It is a limitation of the jurisdiction of the courts of this State.” 220 N. C. 18, 20, 16 S. E. 2d 411, 412.
But the allowable “limitation of the jurisdiction of the courts” of North Carolina presents more than a question of local law for determination by the North Carolina Supreme Court. Speaking for a unanimous Court, Mr. Justice Brandeis thus expressed the subordination to the requirements of the Constitution of the power of a State to withdraw jurisdiction from its courts: “The power of a State to determine the limits of the jurisdiction of its courts and the character of the controversies which shall be heard in them is, of course, subject to the restrictions imposed by the Federal Constitution.” McKnett v. St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co., 292 U. S. 230, 233. The Contract Clause, the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Privileges or Immunities Clause, all fetter the freedom of a State to deny access to its courts howsoever much it may regard such withdrawal of jurisdiction “the adjective law of the State,” or the exercise of its right to regulate “the practice and procedure” of its courts. Broderick v. Rosner, 294 U. S. 629, 642. A State “cannot escape its constitutional obligations by the simple device of denying jurisdiction in such cases to courts otherwise competent.” Kenney v. Supreme Lodge, 252 U. S. 411, 415; and see White v. Hart, 13 Wall. 646. This pervasive principle of our federal law, constitutional and statutory, was thus put by Mr. Justice Holmes: “ Whatever springes the State may set for those who are endeavoring to assert rights that the State confers, the assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.” Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U. S. 22, 24.
4. Here, claims based on the United States Constitution were plainly and reasonably made in the North Carolina suit. The North Carolina Supreme Court met these claims. It met them by saying that the North Carolina statute did not deal with substantive matters but merely with matters regulating local procedure. But whether the claims are based on a federal right or are merely of local concern is itself a federal question on which this Court, and not the Supreme Court of North Carolina, has the last say. That Court could not put a federal claim aside, as though it were not in litigation, by the talismanic word “jurisdiction.” When an asserted federal right is denied, the sufficiency of the grounds of denial is for this Court to decide. Titus v. Wallick, 306 U. S. 282, 291. Bullington could have come here, not merely by the grace of this Court on certiorari, but on appeal, as did White in White v. Hart, supra, to challenge, successfully, the right of Georgia to limit the jurisdiction of the Georgia courts; as did the East New York Savings Bank in the recent case of East New York Bank v. Hahn, 326 U. S. 230, to challenge, though unsuccessfully, the limitation which New York placed upon the jurisdiction of its courts. Cf. Kenney v. Supreme Lodge, 252 U. S. 411, 416. Since it was open for Bullington to come here to seek reversal of the decision of the North Carolina Supreme Court shutting him out of the North Carolina courts and he chose not to do so, the decision of the North Carolina Supreme Court concluded an adjudication of a federal question even though it was not couched in those terms. For purposes of litigating the issues in controversy in the North Carolina action, the North Carolina Supreme Court was an intermediate tribunal. If a litigant chooses not to continue to assert his rights after an intermediate tribunal has decided against him, he has concluded his litigation as effectively as though he had proceeded through the highest tribunal available to him. An adjudication of an issue implies that a man had a chance to win his case. The chance was necessarily afforded by the North Carolina litigation. It was in process of determination when the Supreme Court of North Carolina decided it against him. He forewent his right to have a higher court, this Court, enable him to win his chance by holding that he was right and that the North Carolina Supreme Court was wrong. He cannot begin all over again in an action involving the same issues before another forum in the same State.
5. It is suggested that the North Carolina Supreme Court did not adjudicate the “merits” of the controversy. It is a misconception of res judicata to assume that the doctrine does not come into operation if a court has not passed on the “merits” in the sense of the ultimate substantive issues of a litigation. An adjudication declining to reach such ultimate substantive issues may bar a second attempt to reach them in another court of the State. Such a situation is presented when the first decision is based not on the ground that the distribution of judicial power among the various courts of the State requires the suit to be brought in another court in the State, but on the inaccessibility of all the courts of the State to such litigation. And that is the essence of the present case. The only issue in controversy in the first North Carolina litigation was whether or not all the courts of North Carolina were closed to that litigation. The merits of that issue were adjudicated. And that was the issue raised in the second litigation in North Carolina—that in the federal district court. The merits of this issue having been adjudicated, they cannot be relitigated.
The “merits” of a claim are disposed of when it is refused enforcement. If an asserted federal claim is denied enforcement on a professed local ground, but a so-called local ground which is subject to review here because it is in fact the adjudication of a federal question, then the “merits” of that claim were adjudicated in the only sense that adjudication of the “merits” is relevant to the principles of res judicata. A State court cannot sterilize federal claims by putting on the adjudication a local label.
6. The merits of this controversy were adjudicated by the North Carolina Supreme Court since that court, or this Court on appeal, might have decided that the North Carolina statute did not bar Bullington’s first action. The North Carolina statute might have been found unconstitutional. Federal issues were thus involved in the adjudication by the North Carolina Supreme Court. Bullington knew that there were federal issues in the State suit because he raised them. He was then content to drop them and let the intermediate adjudication stand. Now he wants an encore.
7. It is suggested that the North Carolina Supreme Court construed the North Carolina statute to close only the North Carolina State courts but not the federal court sitting in North Carolina. In the first place, the North Carolina Supreme Court said no such thing. It construed the statute expressive of State policy and spoke only of the jurisdiction of the State courts because it was concerned only with the State courts. Secondly, it is most incongruous to attribute to the legislature and judiciary of North Carolina the imposition of a restriction against all its citizens from suing for a deficiency judgment, while impliedly authorizing citizens of other States to secure such deficiency judgments against North Carolinians. Thirdly, a North Carolina statute, upheld by the highest court of North Carolina, is of course expressive of North Carolina policy. The essence of diversity jurisdiction is that a federal court enforces State law and State policy. If North Carolina has authoritatively announced that deficiency judgments cannot be secured within its borders, it contradicts the presuppositions of diversity jurisdiction for a federal court in that State to give such a deficiency judgment. North Carolina would hardly allow defeat of a State-wide policy through occasional suits in a federal court. What is more important, diversity jurisdiction must follow State law and policy. A federal court in North Carolina, when invoked on grounds of diversity of citizenship, cannot give that which North Carolina has withheld. Availability of diversity jurisdiction which was put into the Constitution so as to prevent discrimination against outsiders is not to effect discrimination against the great body of local citizens.
Cases like Lupton’s Sons Co. v. Automobile Club, 225 U. S. 489, are obsolete insofar as they are based on a view of diversity jurisdiction which came to an end with Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, 304 U. S. 64. That decision drastically limited the power of federal district courts to entertain suits in diversity cases that could not be brought in the respective State courts or were barred by defenses controlling in the State courts. Compare Suydam v. Broadnax, 14 Pet. 67, 75. Of course, where resort is had to a federal court not on grounds of diversity of citizenship but because a federal right is claimed, the limitations upon the courts of a State do not control a federal court sitting in the State. Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U. S. 392.
8. After an adverse decision against Bullington on a cause of action created by State law, Bullington wants to start all over again in another North Carolina court, albeit a federal court. The first litigation raised and adjudicated federal issues every one of which is again involved in the second suit. To allow such a second suit is to say that a federal right in issue in a State court evaporates because the State court calls it a State right and the litigant accepts the decision. If tolerated, our federal system would afford fine opportunities for needlessly multiplying litigation in this way. The doctrine of res judicata is a barrier against it. Litigation is the means for vindicating rights, but it may also involve unwarranted friction and waste. The doctrine of res judicata reflects the refusal of law to tolerate needless litigation. Litigation is needless if, by fair process, a controversy has once gone through the courts to conclusion. Compare, e. g., Hazel-Atlas Co. v. Hartford Co., 322 U. S. 238, 244. And it has gone through, if issues that were or could have been dealt with in an earlier litigation are raised anew between the same parties. Chicot County Dist. v. Bank, 308 U. S. 371.
Judgment reversed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
MR. Justice Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 1913, at the age of 10 years, petitioner was brought to the United States as an immigrant from Poland. In June 1938 the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan entered its order admitting him to citizenship. More than 14 years later, in December 1952, the United States brought this suit under § 338 (a) of the Nationality Act of 1940 to set aside the naturalization decree, alleging that Nowak had obtained his citizenship both fraudulently and illegally. The Government filed with its complaint an “affidavit showing good cause,” as required by § 338 (a). After a trial the District Court granted the relief requested by the United States on the grounds that Nowak (1) fraudulently obtained citizenship by making a false answer to a question in his Preliminary Form for Petition for Naturalization, filed in July 1937; and (2) illegally obtained citizenship, in that for a period of five years preceding his naturalization he had not been “attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States . . . ,” as required by § 4 of the Nationality Act of 1906, under which he was naturalized. 133 F. Supp. 191. The Court of Appeals affirmed, 238 F. 2d 282, and we granted cer-tiorari. 353 U. S. 922. For reasons given hereafter we decide that the judgment below must be reversed.
1. “Good Cause” Affidavit. — Petitioner, relying on United States v. Zueca, 351 U. S. 91, contends that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over this proceeding because the Government’s affidavit of “good cause” was defective, in that it was not made by one having personal knowledge of the matters contained therein. This contention must be rejected. The affiant was an attorney of the Immigration and Naturalization Service who swore that the allegations made in his affidavit were based upon facts disclosed by official records of the Naturalization Service to which he had had access. In substance the affidavit set forth the same matters upon which the District Court’s later decree of denaturalization was based, and showed with adequate particularity the grounds on which the Government’s suit rested. Sworn to as it was by a responsible official of the Naturalization Service, we consider that the affidavit satisfied the purpose of § 338 (a) to protect those proceeded against from ill-considered action. See United States v. Zueca, supra, at 99-100.
2. Fraudulent Procurement. — The finding of fraud here was based on Nowak’s answer to Question 28 in the above-mentioned preliminary naturalization form, which read:
“28. Are you a believer in anarchy? . . . Do you belong to or are you associated with any organization which teaches or advocates anarchy or the overthrow of existing government in this country? . . .”
Nowak placed “No” after each part of the question. The courts below ruled that he should have answered “Yes” to the second part because in 1937, when the form was executed, (1) Nowak was a member of the Communist Party; (2) the Party taught “the overthrow of existing government”; and (3) Nowak was aware of this Party teaching. Accordingly the charge of fraudulent procurement was sustained.
Where citizenship is at stake the Government carries the heavy burden of proving its case by “ ‘clear, unequivocal, and convincing’ evidence which does not leave ‘the issue in doubt’ . . . .” Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U. S. 118, 158. “Especially is this so when the attack is made long after the time when the certificate of citizenship was granted and the citizen has meanwhile met his obligations and has committed no act of lawlessness.” Id., at 122-123. See also Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U. S. 665, 675. And in a case such as this it becomes our duty to scrutinize the record with the utmost care. Cf. Dennis v. United States, 341 U. S. 494, 516; Yates v. United States, 354 U. S. 298, 328.
Applying the strict standard required of the Government by Schneiderman, we rule that the charge of fraud was not proved: first, Question 28 on its face was not sufficiently clear to warrant the firm conclusion that when Nowak answered it in 1937 he should have known that it called for disclosure of membership in nonanarchistic organizations advocating violent overthrow of government and, more particularly, membership in the Communist Party; second, even if the question should have been taken as calling for disclosure of membership in such organizations, as the Government claims, the evidence, as we decide below in connection with the charge of illegal procurement, was insufficient to establish that Nowak knew that the Communist Party engaged in such illegal advocacy. We deal with the first of these grounds here.
No claim is made that Nowak’s answer to the first part of Question 28 was untruthful. The issue is whether, as Nowak claims, the second part of the question could reasonably have been read by him as inquiring solely about membership in an anarchistic organization, or whether, as the Government contends, it unambiguously called for disclosure of membership in an organization which advocates either anarchy or overthrow of existing government.
We think that Nowak could reasonably have interpreted Question 28 as a two-pronged inquiry relating simply to anarchy. Its first part refers solely to anarchy. Its second part, which is in direct series with the first, begins with “anarchy,” and then refers to “overthrow.” It is true that the two terms are used in the disjunctive, but, having regard to the maxim ejusdem generis, we do not think that the Government’s burden can be satisfied simply by parsing the second sentence of the question according to strict rules of syntax. For the two references to “anarchy” make it not implausible to read the question in its totality as inquiring solely about anarchy. Especially is this so when it is borne in mind that Nowak answered the question in 1937, during a period when communism was much less in the public consciousness than has been the case in more recent years, and when, accordingly, there was less reason for individuals to believe that government questionnaires were seeking information relating to Communist Party membership. The fact that the Nationality Act of 1906, under which this preliminary naturalization form was issued, prohibited anarchists, but not Communists, from becoming American citizens, see 34 Stat. 596, 597, 598, accentuates the highly doubtful meaning of the question. We hold the second part of Question 28 too ambiguous to sustain the fraudulent procurement charge based on petitioner’s answer to it.
3. Illegal Procurement. — As in the Schneiderman case, the Government here undertook to prove that Nowak, during the five years preceding his naturalization, was not “attached” to the principles of the Constitution by showing that he had been a member of the Communist Party with knowledge that the Party advocated the overthrow of the Government by force and violence. We believe that the Government has adequately proved that Nowak was a member of the Party during the pertinent five-year period. But even assuming that the evidence of the illegal advocacy of the Party was sufficient, see Yates v. United States, supra, at 319-322, and that, despite the doubts expressed in Schneiderman v. United States, supra, at 136, 154, lack of “attachment” could be proved by this method, we nevertheless hold that the Government cannot prevail on this record. For we are of the opinion that it has not been established that Nowak knew of the Party’s illegal advocacy.
The fact that Nowak was an active member and functionary in the Party does not of itself suffice to establish this vital link in the Government’s chain of proof. See generally Schneiderman v. United States, supra; cf. Yates v. United States, supra, at 329-330. Nor is the Government’s burden satisfied on the crucial issue of Nowak’s awareness of the illegal aspects of the Party’s program by the evidence of his attendance at “closed” Party meetings, or by the disputed evidence as to his alleged concealment of Party membership. Virtually the only testimony at the trial bearing directly on Nowak’s state of mind related to three statements attributed to him by former members of the Communist Party. One testified that at the meeting at which Nowak joined the Party in 1935 he stated that it would be necessary to “destroy” capitalism in order to set up a workers’ government. A second testified that about 1937 Nowak stated at a Party meeting that the Party could not rely entirely on the ballot to gain its objectives, “but that it would eventually resolve to bullets.” And a third testified that in the summer of 1937, while lecturing at a Party school, Nowak said that if the Party could not gain control of labor unions through elections, “then it may be necessary to use violence to get it,” and that “the goal of all this activity was to extend the Soviet system around the face of the earth.”
For a number of reasons we cannot regard these fragmentary episodes as providing rehable support for the Government’s case. On their face each of the statements attributed to Nowak was equivocal. Read in context, they can be taken as merely the expression of opinions or predictions about future events, rather than as advocacy of violent action for the overthrow of government. See Schneiderman v. United States, supra, at 157-158; cf. Yates v. United States, supra, at 319-322. The record reveals that in two of these instances Nowak was not even addressing himself to political action, but rather to Party activity designed to strengthen the American labor movement, in which he was a union organizer. At no point does the record show that Nowak himself ever advocated action for violent overthrow, or that he understood that the Party advocated action to that end. In addition, the record leaves us with the distinct impression that the testimony as to these episodes was itself quite uncertain, given as it was from 17 to 19 years after the event. Indeed, some of the testimony was elicited only after persistent prodding by counsel for the Government.
Under the strict standard of proof by which this case must be judged, the record shows at best from the Government’s standpoint that Nowak was an active member and functionary of the Communist Party. But this proof does not suffice to make out the Government’s case, for Congress in the Nationality Act of 1940 did not make membership or holding office in the Communist Party a ground for loss of citizenship. We conclude that the Government has failed to prove its charges of fraud and lack of “attachment” against this petitioner by the “clear, unequivocal, and convincing” evidence which is required in denaturalization cases. We therefore need not consider any of the other contentions pressed by petitioner.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
Reversed.
54 Stat. 1137, 1158:
“It shall be the duty of the United States district attorneys for the respective districts, upon affidavit showing good cause therefor, to institute proceedings ... for the purpose of revoking and setting aside the order admitting such person to citizenship and canceling the certificate of naturalization on the ground of fraud or on the ground that such order and certificate of naturalization were illegally procured.”
Paragraph 4 of §4 of the Act, 34 Stat. 596, 598, as amended, 8 U. S. C. (1934 ed.) § 382, provides that no alien may be admitted to citizenship unless immediately preceding his application he has resided continuously within the United States for at least five years and that during this period “he has behaved as a person of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States.”
No evidence was introduced tending to show that Nowak actually understood Question 28 as calling for disclosure of his membership in the Communist Party. The Government argues that the requisite understanding of the question should be imputed to Nowak, “an important functionary in the Party, and an intelligent man,” because of the fact that for some period prior to 1937 the deportation and exclusion statutes applied to aliens “who are anarchists; aliens who believe in or advocate the overthrow by force or violence of the Government of the United States or of all forms of law.” Act of October 16, 1918, 40 Stat. 1012. The gap in the Government's proof cannot be filled in such tenuous fashion, especially in view of the citizenship provisions of the Nationality Act of 1906 referred to in the text.
The testimony of witness Eager provides an example of this: After it was established that in 1937 Eager was a member of the same Communist Party cell as Nowak, which was composed of members of the United Auto Workers, and that they attended several Party meetings together, Eager was asked what Nowak said at those meetings. Eager’s reply was, “He gave an outline of what Party members should do in the plant, and that we would have to be a little more aggressive if we expected to get anywhere at that time. . . . And he said we couldn’t depend entirely on ballots in this country; it was only by a militant Communist leadership in the shops, stores and factories and mines that we could expect to have a Soviet America.” (Transcript, pp. 315-316.) During the course of his direct examination Eager was asked several more times about statements Nowak may have made relating to communism either at Party meetings or in private conversation. His answers were always of two types. Sometimes he substantially repeated his first account; for example, “[Nowak] said the Party policy was that members of the Party in the various unions should take an aggressive and militant leadership of the union.” (Transcript, p. 321.) Or else he pleaded that he was not able to remember what Nowak said; for example, “I can’t recall the exact words he said at that meeting, it is so long ago.” (Transcript, p. 322.) After direct examination ended, and after a lengthy cross-examination, counsel for the Government returned to the theme on redirect and asked Eager about any statements of Nowak concerning "the role that the Communist Party should play in that union.” Eager replied, “Only to the extent that he stated we should be militant and aggressive and take a leadership in our plants.” (Transcript, p. 375.) A little later Eager was asked substantially the same question. After objection by Nowak’s counsel on the ground that the matter had been gone into “ten times on direct examination,” the District Court recognized that the question had previously been asked, but permitted the witness to answer. Eager said, “Well, I think that I have answered that question four or five times.” When asked at that point if he could add anything, Eager only then submitted the answer so heavily relied on by the Government here, “The only thing I can recall him saying one night, at a meeting, that was slightly different, I guess, and yet the same question of militancy and all that, and there was political action, the question was brought up at the meeting and he told us at that time that we couldn’t depend too much on the ballot to gain our objectives but that it would eventually resolve to bullets, and it was only by the same militancy of the workers in the plants that we, as leaders, would be able to establish a Soviet America.” (Transcript, p. 379.)
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioners are the minor children of Jack R. Francis who was killed while riding as an interstate passenger on one of respondent’s trains. They brought this suit, acting through their general guardians, to recover damages on account of his death. Jurisdiction in the federal court was founded on diversity of citizenship. The trial judge submitted to the jury only the question of respondent’s wanton negligence. The error alleged is his refusal to submit to the jury the issue of ordinary negligence. The jury returned a verdict for respondent. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. 162 F.2d 813.
The Circuit Court of Appeals held that Utah law creates a right of action in the heirs for the wrongful death of the decedent and' that the action is distinct from any which decedent might have maintained had he survived. But the court held that the action is maintainable only where the decedent could have recovered damages for his injury if death had not ensued. In this case the decedent, an employee of respondent, was riding on a free pass not in connection with any duties he had as an employee but as a passenger only. The Circuit Court of Appeals therefore held as a matter of federal law that respondent would not have been liable to decedent for damages caused by ordinary negligence, relying on Northern Pacific R. Co. v. Adams, 192 U. S. 440. It concluded that respondent had the same defense against the heirs. We granted the petition for a writ of certiorari to reexamine the relationship between local law and federal law respecting the liability of interstate carriers under free passes.
In Van Wagoner v. Union Pac. R. Co., — Utah —, 186 P. 2d 293, decided after the petition for certiorari in the present case was filed, the heirs sued to recover damages for the death of the decedent in a grade-crossing accident. The court held that a defense of contributory negligence which would have barred recovery by the decedent likewise bars the heirs. In view of this ruling by the Utah Supreme Court we cannot say that the Circuit Court of Appeals committed plain error in holding that respondent had the same defenses against petitioners as it would have had against the decedent. Yet it requires such showing of error for us to overrule the lower courts in their applications of Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U. S. 64. See Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U. S. 109, 118; MacGregor v. State Mutual Co., 315 U. S. 280; Steele v. General Mills, 329 U. S. 433, 439. Cf. Wichita Co. v. City Bank, 306 U. S. 103.
The free pass in the present case stated that “the user assumes all risk of injury to person or property and of loss of property whether by negligence or otherwise, and absolves the issuing company . . . from any liability therefor.” In Northern Pacific R. Co. v. Adams, supra, a similar provision in a free pass was sustained as a defense to an action brought under an Idaho statute by the heirs of a passenger. That was in 1904. The Adams decision was soon followed by Boering v. Chesapeake Beach R. Co., 193 U. S. 442. Then in 1906 came the Hepburn Act which under pain of a criminal penalty prohibited a common carrier subject to the Act from issuing a “free pass” except, inter alia, to “its employees and their families.” 34 Stat. 584, 49 U. S. C. § 1 (7). Thereafter in 1914 the Court held that the rule of the Adams case was applicable under the federal statute and that the “free pass” was nonetheless a gratuity though issued to an employee of the carrier. Charleston & W. C. R. Co. v. Thompson, 234 U. S. 576. Kansas City So. R. Co. v. Van Zant, 260 U. S. 459, followed in 1923 and held that the liability of an interstate carrier to one riding on a “free pass” was determined not by state law but by the Hepburn Act. The Court said, p. 468, “The provision for passes, with its sanction in penalties, is a regulation of interstate commerce to the completion of which the determination of the effect of the passes is necessary. We think, therefore, free passes in their entirety are taken charge of, not only their permission and use, but the limitations and conditions upon their use. Or to put it another way, and to specialize, the relation of their users to the railroad which issued them, the fact and measure of responsibility the railroad incurs by their issue, and the extent of the right the person to whom issued acquires, are taken charge of.”
For years this has been the accepted and well-settled construction of the Hepburn Act. During that long period it stood unchallenged in this Court and, so far as we can ascertain, in Congress too. Then came the Transportation Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 898, 900, with its comprehensive revision of the statutes of which the Hepburn Act was part. Amendments were made to the free-pass provision of the Act to permit free transportation of additional classes of persons. No other amendments to the free-pass provision were made. It was reenacted without further change or qualification. In view of this history we do not reach the question of what construction we would give the Hepburn Act were we writing on a clean slate. The extent to which we should rely upon such history is always a difficult question which has frequently troubled the Court in many fields of law and with varied results. See Girouard v. United States, 328 U. S. 61, 69, 70; Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U. S. 106, 119, 123. But in the setting of this case, we find the long and well-settled construction of the Act plus reenactment of the free-pass provision without change of the established interpretation most persuasive indications that the rule of the Adams, Thompson, and Van Zant cases has become part of the warp and woof of the legislation. See Missouri v. Ross, 299 U. S. 72, 75; United States v. Elgin, J. & E. R. Co., 298 U. S. 492, 500; United States v. Ryan, 284 U. S. 167, 175; Hecht v. Malley, 265 U. S. 144, 153; Electric Battery Co. v. Shimadzu, 307 U. S. 5, 14. Any state law which conflicts with this federal rule governing interstate carriers must therefore give way by virtue of the Supremacy Clause. For it was held in the Van Zant case that the free-pass provision of the Hepburn Act was a regulation of interstate commerce “to the completion of which the determination of the effect of the passes is necessary.” Thus there is no room for the application of Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, supra, on this phase of the case. The Van Zant case arose not in a lower federal court but in a state court; the holding was not a declaration of a “general commercial law” but a ruling that “the incidents and consequences” of the pass were controlled by the federal act “to the exclusion of state laws and state policies.” 260 U. S. at 469.
Petitioners contend that the jury panel from which the jury in this case' was selected was drawn contrary to Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co., 328 U. S. 217. We do not stop to inquire into the merits of the claim. The objection was made for the first time in the motion for a new trial. It seems to have been an afterthought, as the Thiel case was decided a few weeks after the verdict of the jury in the present case. If not an afterthought, it is an effort to retrieve a position that was forsaken when it was decided to take a gamble on the existing jury panel. In either case the objection comes too late. Cf. Queenan v. Oklahoma, 190 U. S. 548, 552.
Affirmed.
The Utah Supreme Court in its original opinion in the Van Wagoner case stated that the right granted the heirs is a “right to proceed against the wrongdoer subject to the defenses available against the deceased, had he lived and prosecuted the suit.” On petition for rehearing that statement was eliminated and the following one substituted: "Under the facts of this case the right to proceed against the wrongdoer is subject to the defense of contributory negligence.” 189 P. 2d 701.
That ruling is no deviation from the Utah law as construed by the lower federal courts. It supports the view of Utah law taken by the Circuit Court of Appeals and is in line with the weight of authority in the state courts. See Mellon v. Goodyear, 277 U. S. 335, 344-345. Hence we do not deem it appropriate to remand the case for consideration of the intervening decision in the Van Wagoner case. Cf. Huddleston v. Dwyer, 322 U. S. 232.
The Court said, pp. 453-454:
“The railway company was not as to Adams a carrier for hire. It waived its right as a common carrier to exact compensation. It offered him the privilege of riding in its coaches without charge if he would assume the risks of negligence. He was not in the power of the company and obliged to accept its terms. They stood on an equal footing. If he had desired to hold it to its common law obligations to him as a passenger, he could have paid his fare and compelled the company to receive and carry him. He freely and voluntarily chose to accept the privilege offered, and having accepted that privilege cannot repudiate the conditions. It was not a benevolent association, but doing a railroad business for profit; and free passengers are not so many as to induce negligence on its part. So far as the element of contract controls, it was a contract which neither party was bound to enter into, and yet one which each was at liberty to make, and no public policy was violated thereby.”
See H. R. Rep. 2016,76th Cong., 3d Sess., p. 59.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We consider whether the pre-emption clause enacted in the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, 21 U. S. C. § 360k, bars common-law claims challenging the safety and effectiveness of a medical device given premarket approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
I
A
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 52 Stat. 1040, as amended, 21 U. S. C. § 301 et seq., has long required FDA approval for the introduction of new drugs into the market. Until the statutory enactment at issue here, however, the introduction of new medical devices was left largely for the States to supervise as they saw fit. See Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U. S. 470, 475-476 (1996).
The regulatory landscape changed in the 1960’s and 1970’s, as complex devices proliferated and some failed. Most notably, the Daikon Shield intrauterine device, introduced in 1970, was linked to serious infections and several deaths, not to mention a large number of pregnancies. Thousands of tort claims followed. R. Bacigal, The Limits of Litigation: The Daikon Shield Controversy 3 (1990). In the view of many, the Daikon Shield failure and its aftermath demonstrated the inability of the common-law tort system to manage the risks associated with dangerous devices. See, e. g., S. Foote, Managing the Medical Arms Race 151-152 (1992). Several States adopted regulatory measures, including California, which in 1970 enacted a law requiring premarket approval of medical devices. 1970 Cal. Stats, ch. 1573, §§ 26670-26693; see also Leflar & Adler, The Preemption Pentad: Federal Preemption of Products Liability Claims After Medtronic, 64 Tenn. L. Rev. 691,703, n. 66 (1997) (identifying 13 state statutes governing medical devices as of 1976).
Congress stepped in with passage of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (MDA), 21 U. S. C. § 360c et seq., which swept back some state obligations and imposed a regime of detailed federal oversight. The MDA includes an express pre-emption provision that states:
“Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, no State or political subdivision of a State may establish or continue in effect with respect to a device intended for human use any requirement—
“(1) which is different from, or in addition to, any requirement applicable under this chapter to the device, and
“(2) which relates to the safety or effectiveness of the device or to any other matter included in a requirement applicable to the device under this chapter.” §360k(a).
The exception contained in subsection (b) permits the FDA to exempt some state and local requirements from pre-emption.
The new regulatory regime established various levels of oversight for medical devices, depending on the risks they present. Class I, which includes such devices as elastic bandages and examination gloves, is subject to the lowest level of oversight: “general controls,” such as labeling requirements. § 360c(a)(l)(A); FDA, Device Advice: Device Classes, http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/devadvice/3132.html (all Internet materials as visited Feb. 14, 2008, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file). Class II, which includes such devices as powered wheelchairs and surgical drapes, ibid., is subject in addition to “special controls” such as performance standards and postmarket surveillance measures, § 360c(a)(l)(B).
The devices receiving the most federal oversight are those in Class III, which include replacement heart valves, implanted cerebella stimulators, and pacemaker pulse generators, FDA, Device Advice: Device Classes, supra. In general, a device is assigned to Class III if it cannot be established that a less stringent classification would provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, and the device is “purported or represented to be for a use in supporting or sustaining human life or for a use which is of substantial importance in preventing impairment of human health,” or “presents a potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury.” § 360c(a)(l)(C)(ii).
Although the MDA established a rigorous regime of premarket approval for new Class III devices, it grandfathered many that were already on the market. Devices sold before the MDA’s effective date may remain on the market until the FDA promulgates, after notice and comment, a regulation requiring premarket approval. §§ 360c(f)(l), 360e(b)(l). A related provision seeks to limit the competitive advantage grandfathered devices receive. A new device need not undergo premarket approval if the FDA finds it is “substantially equivalent” to another device exempt from premarket approval. § 360c(f)(l)(A). The agency’s review of devices for substantial equivalence is known as the § 510(k) process, named after the statutory provision describing the review. Most new Class III devices enter the market through § 510(k). In 2005, for example, the FDA authorized the marketing of 3,148 devices under § 510(k) and granted premarket approval to just 32 devices. P. Hutt, R. Merrill, & L. Grossman, Food and Drug Law 992 (3d ed. 2007).
Premarket approval is a “rigorous” process. Lohr, supra, at 477. A manufacturer must submit what is typically a multivolume application. FDA, Device Advice — Premarket Approval (PMA) 18, http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/devadvice/ pma/printer.html. It includes, among other things, full reports of all studies and investigations of the device’s safety and effectiveness that have been published or should reasonably be known to the applicant; a “full statement” of the device’s “components, ingredients, and properties and of the principle or principles of operation”; “a full description of the methods used in, and the facilities and controls used for, the manufacture, processing, and, when relevant, packing and installation of, such device”; samples or device components required by the FDA; and a specimen of the proposed labeling. § 360e(c)(l). Before deciding whether to approve the application, the agency may refer it to a panel of outside experts, 21 CFR § 814.44(a) (2007), and may request additional data from the manufacturer, § 360e(c)(l)(G).
The FDA spends an average of 1,200 hours reviewing each application, Lohr, 518 U. S., at 477, and grants premarket approval only if it finds there is a “reasonable assurance” of the device’s “safety and effectiveness,” § 360e(d). The agency must “weig[h] any probable benefit to health from the use of the device against any probable risk of injury or illness from such use.” § 360c(a)(2)(C). It may thus approve devices that present great risks if they nonetheless offer great benefits in light of available alternatives. It approved, for example, under its Humanitarian Device Exemption procedures, a ventricular assist device for children with failing hearts, even though the survival rate of children using the device was less than 50 percent. FDA, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Debakey VAD Child Left Ventricular Assist System-H030003, Summary of Safety and Probable Benefit 20 (2004), http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/pdf3/H030003b.pdf.
The premarket approval process includes review of the device’s proposed labeling. The FDA evaluates safety and effectiveness under the conditions of use set forth on the label, § 360c(a)(2)(B), and must determine that the proposed labeling is neither false nor misleading, § 360e(d)(l)(A).
After completing its review, the FDA may grant or deny premarket approval. § 360e(d). It may also condition approval on adherence to performance standards, 21 CFR § 861.1(b)(3), restrictions upon sale or distribution, or compliance with other requirements, §814.82. The agency is also free to impose device-specific restrictions by regulation. § 360j(e)(l).
If the FDA is unable to approve a new device in its proposed form, it may send an “approvable letter” indicating that the device could be approved if the applicant submitted specified information or agreed to certain conditions or restrictions. 21 CFR § 814.44(e). Alternatively, the agency may send a “not approvable” letter, listing the grounds that justify denial and, where practical, measures that the applicant could undertake to make the device approvable. § 814.44(f).
Once a device has received premarket approval, the MDA forbids the manufacturer to make, without FDA permission, changes in design specifications, manufacturing processes, labeling, or any other attribute, that would affect safety or effectiveness. § 360e(d)(6)(A)(i). If the applicant wishes to make such a change, it must submit, and the FDA must approve, an application for supplemental premarket approval, to be evaluated under largely the same criteria as an initial application. § 360e(d)(6); 21 CFR § 814.39(c).
After premarket approval, the devices are subject to reporting requirements. § 360i. These include the obligation to inform the FDA of new clinical investigations or scientific studies concerning the device which the applicant knows of or reasonably should know of, 21 CFR § 814.84(b)(2), and to report incidents in which the device may have caused or contributed to death or serious injury, or malfunctioned in a manner that would likely cause or contribute to death or serious injury if it recurred, § 803.50(a). The FDA has the power to withdraw premarket approval based on newly reported data or existing information and must withdraw approval if it determines that a device is unsafe or ineffective under the conditions in its labeling. § 360e(e)(l); see also § 360h(e) (recall authority).
B
Except as otherwise indicated, the facts set forth in this section appear in the opinion of the Court of Appeals. The device at issue is an Evergreen Balloon Catheter marketed by defendant-respondent Medtronic, Inc. It is a Class III device that received premarket approval from the FDA in 1994; changes to its label received supplemental approvals in 1995 and 1996.
Charles Riegel underwent coronary angioplasty in 1996, shortly after suffering a myocardial infarction. App. to Pet. for Cert. 56a. His right coronary artery was diffusely diseased and heavily calcified. Riegel’s doctor inserted the Evergreen Balloon Catheter into his patient’s coronary artery in an attempt to dilate the artery, although the device’s labeling stated that use was contraindicated for patients with diffuse or calcified stenoses. The label also warned that the catheter should not be inflated beyond its rated burst pressure of eight atmospheres. Riegel’s doctor inflated the catheter five times, to a pressure of 10 atmospheres; on its fifth inflation, the catheter ruptured. Complaint 3. Riegel developed a heart block; was placed on life support, and underwent emergency coronary bypass surgery.
Riegel and his wife Donna brought this lawsuit in April 1999, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. Their complaint alleged that Medtronic’s catheter was designed, labeled, and manufactured in a manner that violated New York common law, and that these defects caused Riegel to suffer severe and permanent injuries. The complaint raised a number of common-law claims. The District Court held that the MDA pre-empted Riegel’s claims of strict liability; breach of implied warranty; and negligence in the design, testing, inspection, distribution, labeling, marketing, and sale of the catheter. App. to
Pet. for Cert. 68a; Complaint 3-4. It also held that the MDA pre-empted a negligent manufacturing claim insofar as it was not premised on the theory that Medtronic violated federal law. App. to Pet. for Cert. 71a. Finally, the court concluded that the MDA pre-empted Donna Riegel’s claim for loss of consortium to the extent it was derivative of the pre-empted claims. Id., at 68a; see also id., at 75a.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed these dismissals. 451 F. 3d 104 (2006). The court concluded that Medtronic was “clearly subject to the federal, device-specific requirement of adhering to the standards contained in its individual, federally approved” premarket approval application. Id., at 118. The Riegels’ claims were pre-empted because they “would, if successful, impose state requirements that differed from, or added to,” the device-specific federal requirements. Id., at 121. We granted certiorari. 551 U. S. 1144 (2007).
II
Since the MDA expressly pre-empts only state requirements “different from, or in addition to, any requirement applicable ... to the device” under federal law, § 360k(a)(l), we must determine whether the Federal Government has established requirements applicable to Medtronic’s catheter. If so, we must then determine whether the Riegels’ common-law claims are based upon New York requirements with respect to the device that are “different from, or in addition to,” the federal ones, and that relate to safety and effectiveness. § 360k(a).
We turn to the first question. In Lohr, a majority of this Court interpreted the MDA’s pre-emption provision in a manner “substantially informed” by the FDA regulation set forth at 21 CFR § 808.1(d). 518 U. S., at 495; see also id., at 500-501. That regulation says that state requirements are pre-empted “only when the Food and Drug Administration has established specific counterpart regulations or there are other specific requirements applicable to a particular device . . . .” 21 CFR § 808.1(d). Informed by the regulation, we concluded that federal manufacturing and labeling requirements applicable across the board to almost all medical devices did not pre-empt the common-law claims of negligence and strict liability at issue in Lohr. The federal requirements, we said, were not requirements specific to the device in question — they reflected “entirely generic concerns about device regulation generally.” 518 U. S., at 501. While we disclaimed a conclusion that general federal requirements could never pre-empt, or general state duties never be pre-empted, we held that no pre-emption occurred in the case at hand based on a careful comparison between the state and federal duties at issue. Id., at 500-501.
Even though substantial-equivalence review under § 510(k) is device specific, Lohr also rejected the manufacturer’s contention that § 510(k) approval imposed device-specific “requirements.” We regarded the fact that products entering the market through § 510(k) may be marketed only so long as they remain substantial equivalents of the relevant pre-1976 devices as a qualification for an exemption rather than a requirement. Id., at 493-494; see also id., at 513 (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
Premarket approval, in contrast, imposes “requirements” under the MDA as we interpreted it in Lohr. Unlike general labeling duties, premarket approval is specific to individual devices. And it is in no sense an exemption from federal safety review — it is federal safety review. Thus, the attributes that Lohr found lacking in §510(k) review are present here. While §510(k) is “‘focused on equivalence, not safety,’” id., at 493 (opinion of the Court), premarket approval is focused on safety, not equivalence. While devices that enter the market through §510(k) have “never been formally reviewed under the MDA for safety or efficacy,” ibid., the FDA may grant premarket approval only after it determines that a device offers a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, § 360e(d). And while the FDA does not “‘require’” that a device allowed to enter the market as a substantial equivalent “take any particular form for any particular reason,” 518 U. S., at 493, the FDA requires a device that has received premarket approval to be made with almost no deviations from the specifications in its approval application, for the reason that the FDA has determined that the approved form provides a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness.
HI
We turn, then, to the second question: whether the Riegels’ common-law claims rely upon “any requirement” of New York law applicable to the catheter that is “different from, or in addition to,” federal requirements and that “relates to the safety or effectiveness of the device or to any other matter included in a requirement applicable to the device.” § 360k(a). Safety and effectiveness are the very subjects of the Riegels’ common-law claims, so the critical issue is whether New York’s tort duties constitute “requirements” under the MDA.
A
In Lohr, five Justices concluded that common-law causes of action for negligence and strict liability do impose “requirement[s]” and would be pre-empted by federal requirements specific to a medical device. See 518 U. S., at 512 (opinion of O’Connor, J., joined by Rehnquist, C. J., and Scalia and Thomas, JJ.); id., at 503-505 (Breyer, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). We adhere to that view. In interpreting two other statutes we have likewise held that a provision pre-empting state “requirements” pre-empted common-law duties. Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U. S. 431 (2005), found common-law actions to be pre-empted by a provision of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act that said certain States “ ‘shall not impose or continue in effect any requirements for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from those required under this subchapter.’ ” Id., at 443 (discussing 7 U. S, C. § 136v(b); emphasis added). Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U. S. 504 (1992), held common-law actions preempted by a provision of the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969, 15 U. S. C. § 1334(b), which said that “[n]o requirement or prohibition based on smoking and health shall be imposed under State law with respect to the advertising or promotion of aiiy cigarettes” whose packages were labeled in accordance with federal law. See 505 U. S., at 523 (plurality opinion); id., at 548-549 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part).
Congress is entitled to know what meaning this Court will assign to terms regularly used in its enactments. Absent other indication, reference to a State’s “requirements” includes its common-law duties. As the plurality opinion said in Cipollone, common-law liability is “premised on the existence of a legal duty,” and a tort judgment therefore establishes that the defendant has violated a state-law obligation. Id., at 522. And while the common-law remedy is limited to damages, a liability award “ ‘can be, indeed is designed to be, a potent method of governing conduct and controlling policy.’” Id., at 521.
In the present case, there is nothing to contradict this normal meaning. To the contrary, in the context of this legislation excluding common-law duties from the scope of preemption would make little sense. State tort law that requires a manufacturer’s catheters to be safer, but hence less effective, than the model the FDA has approved disrupts the federal scheme no less than state regulatory law to the same effect. Indeed, one would think that tort law, applied by juries under a negligence or strict-liability standard, is less deserving of preservation. A state statute, or a regulation adopted by a state agency, could at least be expected to apply cost-benefit analysis similar to that applied by the experts at the FDA: How many more lives will be saved by a device which, along with its greater effectiveness, brings a greater risk of harm? A jury, on the other hand, sees only the cost of a more dangerous design, and is not concerned with its benefits; the patients who reaped those benefits are not represented in court. As Justice Breyer explained in Lohr, it is implausible that the MDA was meant to “grant greater power (to set state standards ‘different from, or in addition to,’ federal standards) to a single state jury than to state officials acting through state administrative or legislative lawmaking processes.” 518 U. S., at 504. That perverse distinction is not required or even suggested by the broad language Congress chose in the MDA, and we will not turn somersaults to create it.
B
The dissent would narrow the pre-emptive scope of the term “requirement” on the grounds that it is “difficult to believe that Congress would, without comment, remove all means of judicial recourse” for consumers injured by FDA-approved devices. Post, at 337 (opinion of Ginsburg, J.) (internal quotation marks omitted). But, as we have explained, this is exactly what a pre-emption clause for medical devices does by its terms. The operation of a law enacted by Congress need not be seconded by a committee report on pain of judicial nullification. See, e. g., Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Germain, 503 U. S. 249, 253-254 (1992). It is not our job to speculate upon congressional motives. If we were to do so, however, the only indication available — the text of the statute — suggests that the solicitude for those injured by FDA-approved devices, which the dissent finds controlling, was overcome in Congress’s estimation by solicitude for those who would suffer without new medical devices if juries were allowed to apply the tort law of 50 States to all innovations.
In the case before us, the FDA has supported the position taken by our opinion with regard to the meaning of the statute. We have found it unnecessary to rely upon that agency view because we think the statute itself speaks clearly to the point at issue. If, however, we had found the statute ambiguous and had accorded the agency’s current position deference, the dissent is correct, see post, at 338, n. 8, that— inasmuch as mere Skidmore deference would seemingly be at issue — the degree of deference might be reduced by the fact that the agency’s earlier position was different. See Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U. S. 134 (1944); United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U. S. 218 (2001); Good Samaritan Hospital v. Shalala, 508 U. S. 402, 417 (1993). But of course the agency’s earlier position (which the dissent describes at some length, post, at 337-338, and finds preferable) is even more compromised, indeed deprived of all claim to deference, by the fact that it is no longer the agency’s position.
The dissent also describes at great length the experience under the FDCA with respect to drugs and food and color additives. Post, at 339-342. Two points render the conclusion the dissent seeks to draw from that experience — that the pre-emption clause permits tort suits — unreliable. (1) It has not been established (as the dissent assumes) that no tort lawsuits are pre-empted by drug or additive approval under the FDCA. (2) If, as the dissent believes, the pre-emption clause permits tort lawsuits for medical devices just as they are (by hypothesis) permitted for drugs and additives; and if, as the dissent believes, Congress wanted the two regimes to be alike; Congress could have applied the pre-emption clause to the entire FDCA. It did not do so, but instead wrote a pre-emption clause that applies only to medical devices.
C
The Riegels contend that the duties underlying negligence, strict-liability, and implied-warranty claims are not preempted even if they impose “ ‘requirements,’ ” because general common-law duties are not requirements maintained “‘with respect to devices.’” Brief for Petitioner 34-36. Again, a majority of this Court suggested otherwise in Lohr. See 518 U. S., at 504-505 (opinion of Breyer, J.); id., at 514 (opinion of O’Connor, J., joined by Rehnquist, C. J., and Scalia and Thomas, JJ.). And with good reason. The language of the statute does not bear the Riegels’ reading. The MDA provides that no State “may establish or continue in effect with respect to a device . . . any requirement” relating to safety or effectiveness that is different from, or in addition to, federal requirements. § 360k(a) (emphasis added). The Riegels’ suit depends upon New York’s “continu[ing] in effect” general tort duties “with respect to” Medtronic’s catheter. Nothing in the statutory text suggests that the pre-empted state requirement must apply only to the relevant device, or only to medical devices and not to all products and all actions in general.
The Riegels’ argument to the contrary rests on the text of an FDA regulation which states that the MDA’s pre-emption clause does not extend to certain duties, including “[s]tate or local requirements of general applicability where the purpose of the requirement relates either to other products in addition to devices (e. g., requirements such as general electrical codes, and the Uniform Commercial Code (warranty of fitness)), or to unfair trade practices in which the requirements are not limited to devices.” 21 CFR § 808.1(d)(1). Even assuming that this regulation could play a role in defining the MDA’s pre-emptive scope, it does not provide unambiguous support for the Riegels’ position. The agency’s reading of its own rule is entitled to substantial deference, see Auer v. Robbins, 519 U. S. 452, 461 (1997), and the FDA’s view put forward in this case is that the regulation does not refer to general tort duties of care, such as those underlying the claims in this case that a device was designed, labeled, or manufactured in an unsafe or ineffective manner, Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 27-28. That is so, according to the FDA, because the regulation excludes from pre-emption requirements that relate only incidentally to medical devices, but not other requirements. General tort duties of care, unlike fire codes or restrictions on trade practices, “directly regulate” the device itself, including its design. Id., at 28. We find the agency’s explanation less than compelling, since the same could be said of general requirements imposed by electrical codes, the Uniform Commercial Code, or unfair-trade-practice law, which the regulation specifically excludes from pre-emption.
Other portions of 21 CFR § 808.1, however, support the agency’s view that § 808.1(d)(1) has no application to this case (though still failing to explain why electrical codes, the Uniform Commercial Code, or unfair-trade-practice requirements are different). Section 808.1(b) states that the MDA sets forth a “general rule” pre-empting state duties “having the force and effect of law (whether established by statute, ordinance, regulation, or court decision) . . . .” (Emphasis added.) This sentence is far more comprehensible under the FDA’s view that § 808.1(d)(1) has no application here than under the Riegels’ view. We are aware of no duties established by court decision other than common-law duties, and we are aware of no common-law duties that relate solely to medical devices.
The Riegels’ reading is also in tension with the regulation’s statement that adulteration and misbranding claims are pre-empted when they “ha[ve] the effect of establishing a substantive requirement for a specific device, e. g., a specific labeling requirement” that is “different from, or in addition to,” a federal requirement. § 808.1(d)(6)(h). Surely this means that the MDA would pre-empt a jury determination that the FDA-approved labeling for a pacemaker violated a state common-law requirement for additional warnings. The Riegels’ reading of § 808.1(d)(1), however, would allow a claim for tortious mislabeling to escape pre-emption so long as such a claim could also be brought against objects other than medical devices.
All in all, we think that § 808.1(d)(1) can add nothing to our analysis but confusion. Neither accepting nor rejecting the proposition that this regulation can properly be consulted to determine the statute’s meaning; and neither accepting nor rejecting the FDA’s distinction between general requirements that directly regulate and those that regulate only incidentally; the regulation fails to alter our interpretation of the text insofar as the outcome of this case is concerned.
IV
State requirements are pre-empted under the MDA only to the extent that they are “different from, or in addition to” the requirements imposed by federal law. § 360k(a)(l). Thus, § 360k does not prevent a State from providing a damages remedy for claims premised on a violation of FDA regulations; the state duties in such a case “parallel,” rather than add to, federal requirements. Lohr, 518 U. S., at 495; see also id., at 513 (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). The District Court in this case recognized that parallel claims would not be pre-empted, see App. to Pet. for Cert. 70a-71a, but it interpreted the claims here to assert that Medtronic’s device violated state tort law notwithstanding compliance with the relevant federal requirements, see id., at 68a. Although the Riegels now argue that their lawsuit raises parallel claims, they made no such contention in their briefs before the Second Circuit, nor did they raise this argument in their petition for certiorari. We decline to address that argument in the first instance here.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Unqualified § 360 et seq. numbers hereinafter refer to sections of 21 U. S. C.
The District Court later granted summary judgment to Medtronic on those claims of Riegel it had found not pre-empted, viz., that Medtronic breached an express warranty and was negligent in manufacturing because it did not comply with federal standards. App. to Pet. for Cert. 90a. It consequently granted summary judgment as well on Donna Riegel’s derivative consortium claim. Ibid. The Court of Appeals affirmed these determinations, and they are not before us.
Charles Riegel having died, Donna Riegel is now petitioner on her own behalf and as administrator of her husband’s estate. Post, p. 804. For simplicity’s sake, the terminology of our opinion draws no -distinction between Charles Riegel and the Estate of Charles Riegel and refers to the claims as belonging to the Riegels.
The Riegels point to § 360k(b), which authorizes the FDA to exempt state “requirements” from pre-emption under circumstances that would rarely be met for common-law duties. But a law that permits an agency to exempt certain “requirements” from pre-emption does not suggest that no other “requirements” exist. The Riegels also invoke § 360h(d), which provides that compliance with certain FDA orders “shall not relieve any person from liability under Federal or State law.” This indicates that some state-law claims are not pre-empted, as we held in Lohr. But it could not possibly mean that all state-law claims are not pre-empted, since that would deprive the MDA pre-emption clause of all content. And it provides no guidance as to which state-law claims are pre-empted and which are not.
Contrary to Justice Stevens’ contention, post, at 331 (opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment), we do not “advanc[e]” this argument. We merely suggest that if one were to speculate upon congressional purposes, the best evidence for that would be found in the statute.
The opinions joined by these five Justices dispose of the Riegels’. assertion that Lohr held common-law duties were too general to qualify as duties “with respect to a device.” The majority opinion in Lohr also disavowed this conclusion, for it stated that the Court did “not believe that [the MDA’s] statutory and regulatory language necessarily precludes . . . ‘general’ state requirements from ever being pre-empted ....” 518 U. S., at 500.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | J | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice GORSUCH delivered the opinion of the Court.
As the Great Depression took its toll, struggling railroad pension funds reached the brink of insolvency. During that time before the modern interstate highway system, privately owned railroads employed large numbers of Americans and provided services vital to the nation's commerce. To address the emergency, Congress adopted the Railroad Retirement Tax Act of 1937. That legislation federalized private railroad pension plans and it remains in force today. Under the law's terms, private railroads and their employees pay a tax based on employees' incomes. 26 U.S.C. §§ 3201(a) - (b), 3221(a) - (b). In return, the federal government provides employees a pension often more generous than the social security system supplies employees in other industries. See Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U.S. 572, 573-575, 99 S.Ct. 802, 59 L.Ed.2d 1 (1979).
Our case arises from a peculiar feature of the statute and its history. At the time of the Act's adoption, railroads compensated employees not just with money but also with food, lodging, railroad tickets, and the like. Because railroads typically didn't count these in-kind benefits when calculating an employee's pension on retirement, neither did Congress in its new statutory pension scheme. Nor did Congress seek to tax these in-kind benefits. Instead, it limited itself to taxing employee "compensation," and defined that term to capture only "any form of money remuneration." § 3231(e)(1).
It's this limitation that poses today's question. To encourage employee performance and align employee and corporate goals, some railroads (like employers in many fields) have adopted employee stock option plans. Typical of many, the plan before us permits an employee to exercise stock options in various ways-purchasing stock with her own money and holding it as an investment; purchasing stock but immediately selling a portion to finance the purchase; or purchasing stock at the option price, selling it all immediately at the market price, and taking the profits. App. 41-42. The government argues that stock options like these qualify as a form of taxable "money remuneration" under the Act because stock can be easily converted into money. The railroads reply that stock options aren't "money" at all and remind us that when Congress passed the Act it sought to mimic existing industry pension practices that generally took no notice of in-kind benefits. Who has the better of it? Courts have divided on the answer, so we agreed to take up the question.
We start with the key statutory term: "money remuneration." As usual, our job is to interpret the words consistent with their "ordinary meaning... at the time Congress enacted the statute." Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37, 42, 100 S.Ct. 311, 62 L.Ed.2d 199 (1979). And when Congress adopted the Act in 1937, "money" was ordinarily understood to mean currency "issued by [a] recognized authority as a medium of exchange." Webster's New International Dictionary 1583 (2d ed. 1942); see also 6 Oxford English Dictionary 603 (1st ed. 1933) ("In mod[ern] use commonly applied indifferently to coin and to such promissory documents representing coin (esp. government and bank notes) as are currently accepted as a medium of exchange"); Black's Law Dictionary 1200 (3d ed. 1933) (in its "popular sense,'money' means any currency, tokens, bank-notes, or other circulating medium in general use as the representative of value"); Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. Virginia, 347 U.S. 359, 365, 74 S.Ct. 558, 98 L.Ed. 757 (1954) ("[M]oney... is a medium of exchange"). Pretty obviously, stock options do not fall within that definition. While stock can be bought or sold for money, few of us buy groceries or pay rent or value goods and services in terms of stock. When was the last time you heard a friend say his new car cost "2,450 shares of Microsoft"? Good luck, too, trying to convince the IRS to treat your stock options as a medium of exchange at tax time. See Rev. Rul. 76-350, 1976-2 Cum. Bull. 396 ; see also, e.g., In re Boyle's Estate, 2 Cal.App.2d 234, 236, 37 P.2d 841 (1934) ("[T]he word'money' when taken in its ordinary and grammatical sense does not include corporate stocks"); Helvering v. Credit Alliance Corp., 316 U.S. 107, 112, 62 S.Ct. 989, 86 L.Ed. 1307 (1942) (distinguishing between "money and... stock").
Nor does adding the word "remuneration" alter the calculus. Of course, "remuneration" can encompass any kind of reward or compensation, not just money. 8 Oxford English Dictionary 439. But in the sentence before us, the adjective "money" modifies the noun "remuneration." So "money" limits the kinds of remuneration that will qualify for taxation; "remuneration" doesn't expand what counts as money. When the statute speaks of taxing "any form of money remuneration," then, it indicates Congress wanted to tax monetary compensation in any of the many forms an employer might choose-coins, paper currency, checks, wire transfers, and the like. It does not prove Congress wanted to tax things, like stock, that aren't money at all.
The broader statutory context points to the same conclusion the immediate text suggests. The 1939 Internal Revenue Code, part of the same title as our statute and adopted just two years later, expressly treated "money" and "stock" as different things. Consider a few examples. The Code described "stock of the corporation" as "property other than money." § 27(d). It explained that a corporate distribution is taxable when distributed "either (A) in [the company's] stock... or (B) in money." § 115(f)(2). And it discussed transfers of "money in addition to... stock or securities." § 372(b). While ultimately ruling for the government, even the Court of Appeals in this case conceded that the 1939 Code "treat[ed]'money' and'stock' as different concepts." 856 F.3d 490, 492 (C.A.7 2017).
That's not all. The same Congress that enacted the Railroad Retirement Tax Act enacted a companion statute, the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA), to fund social security pensions for employees in other industries. And while the Railroad Retirement Tax Act taxes only "money remuneration," FICA taxes "all remuneration"-including benefits "paid in any medium other than cash." § 3121(a) (emphasis added). We usually "presume differences in language like this convey differences in meaning." Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., 582 U.S. ----, ----, 137 S.Ct. 1718, 1723, 198 L.Ed.2d 177 (2017). And that presumption must bear particular strength when the same Congress passed both statutes to handle much the same task. See INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 432, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987). The Congress that enacted both of these pension schemes knew well the difference between "money" and "all" forms of remuneration. Its choice to use the narrower term in the context of railroad pensions alone requires respect, not disregard.
Even the IRS (then the Bureau of Internal Revenue) seems to have understood all this back in 1938. Shortly after the Railroad Retirement Tax Act's enactment, the IRS issued a regulation explaining that the Act taxes "all remuneration in money, or in something which may be used in lieu of money." 26 C.F.R. § 410.5 (1938). By way of example, the regulation said the Act taxed things like "[s]alaries, wages, commissions, fees, [and] bonuses." § 410.6(a). But it nowhere suggested that stock was taxable. Nor was the possibility lost on the IRS. The IRS said the Act did tax money payments related to stock-"[p]ayments made by an employer into a stock bonus... fund." § 410.6(f). But the agency did not seek to extend the same treatment to stock itself. So even assuming the validity of the regulation, it seems only to confirm our understanding.
To be sure, the regulation also lists "scrip and merchandise orders" as examples of qualifying mediums of exchange. § 410.5. For argument's sake, too, we will accept that the word "scrip" can sometimes embrace stock. But even if "scrip" is capable of bearing this meaning, at the time the IRS promulgated the regulation in 1938 that was not its ordinary meaning. As even the government acknowledged before the Court of Appeals, "scrip" ordinarily meant "company-issued certificates" that employees could use in lieu of cash "to purchase merchandise at a company store." Brief for United States in Nos. 16-3300 etc. (CA7 2017), p. 37. This understanding fits perfectly as well with the whole phrase in which the term appears; both "scrip and merchandise orders" were frequently used at the time to purchase goods at company stores. See, e.g., Webster's New International Dictionary 2249 (defining "scrip" as a "certificate... issued to circulate in lieu of government currency" or "by a corporation that pays wages partly in orders on a company store"); Keokee Consol. Coke Co. v. Taylor, 234 U.S. 224, 226, 34 S.Ct. 856, 58 L.Ed. 1288 (1914) (company gave its employees "scrip... as an advance of monthly wages in payment for labor performed" that could be used to purchase merchandise at the company store); Gatch, Local Money in the United States During the Great Depression, 26 Essays in Economic & Bus. History 47-48 (2008).
What does the government have to say about all this? It concedes that money remuneration often means remuneration in a commonly used medium of exchange. But, it submits, the term can carry a much more expansive meaning too. At least sometimes, the government says, "money" means any "property or possessions of any kind viewed as convertible into money or having value expressible in terms of money." 6 Oxford English Dictionary 603. The dissent takes the same view. See post, at 2076 (opinion of BREYER, J.). But while the term "money" sometimes might be used in this much more expansive sense, that isn't how the term was ordinarily used at the time of the Act's adoption (or is even today). Baseball cards, vinyl records, snow globes, and fidget spinners all have "value expressible in terms of money." Even that "priceless" Picasso has a price. Really, almost anything can be reduced to a "value expressible in terms of money." But in ordinary usage does "money" mean almost everything?
The government and the dissent supply no persuasive proof that Congress sought to invoke their idiosyncratic definition. If Congress really thought everything is money, why did it take such pains to differentiate between money and stock in the Internal Revenue Code of 1939? Why did it so carefully distinguish "money remuneration" in the Act and "all remuneration" in FICA? Why did it include the word "money" to qualify "remuneration" if all remuneration counts as money? And wouldn't the everything-is-money interpretation encompass railroad tickets, food, and lodging-exactly the sort of in-kind benefits we know the Act was written to exclude? These questions they cannot answer.
To be sure, the government and dissent do seek to offer a different structural argument of their own. They point to certain of the Act's tax exemptions, most notably the exemption for qualified stock options. See 26 U.S.C. § 3231(e)(12) ; post, at 2077 - 2078 (BREYER, J., dissenting). Because the Act excludes qualified stock options from taxation, the argument goes, to avoid superfluity it must include other sorts of stock options like the nonqualified stock options the railroads issued here. The problem, though, is that the exemption covers "any remuneration on account of " qualified stock options. § 3231(e)(12) (emphasis added). And, as the government concedes, companies sometimes include money payments when qualified stock options are exercised (often to compensate for fractional shares due an employee). Brief for United States 30. As a result, the exemption does work under anyone's reading.
The government replies that Congress would not have bothered to write an exemption that does only this modest work. To have been worth the candle, Congress must have assumed that stock options would qualify as money remuneration without a specific exemption. But we will not join this guessing game. It is not our function "to rewrite a constitutionally valid statutory text under the banner of speculation about what Congress might have" intended. Henson, 582 U.S., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1725. Besides, even if the railroads' interpretation of the statute threatens to leave one of many exemptions with little to do, that's hardly a reason to abandon it, for the government's and dissent's alternative promises a graver surplusage problem of its own. As it did in 1939, the Internal Revenue Code today repeatedly distinguishes between "stock" and "money." See, e.g., § 306(c)(2) (referring to a situation where "money had been distributed in lieu of... stock"). All these distinctions the government and dissent would simply obliterate.
Reaching further afield, the government and dissent point to a 1938 agency interpretation of another companion statute, the Railroad Retirement Act of 1937. See post, at 2078 - 2079 (BREYER, J., dissenting). Here, the Railroad Retirement Board suggested that the term "money remuneration" in the Railroad Retirement Act could sometimes include in-kind benefits. Again we may assume the validity of the regulation because, even taken on its own terms, it only ends up confirming our interpretation. The Board indicated that in-kind benefits could count as money remuneration only if the employer and employee agreed to this treatment and to the dollar value of the benefit. 20 C.F.R. § 222.2 (1938). That same year, the Board made clear that stock was treated just like any other in-kind benefit under this rule: "stock cannot be considered as a 'form of money remuneration earned by an individual for services rendered' " unless part of an employee's "agreed compensation" and awarded "at a definite agreed value." Railroad Retirement Bd. Gen. Counsel Memorandum No. L-38-440, pp. 1-2 (1938). Later, the Board provided fuller explanation for its longstanding view, stating that these conditions are necessary because, unlike FICA, the Act does not cover "'remuneration... paid in any medium.' " Railroad Retirement Bd. Gen. Counsel Memorandum No. L-1986-82, p. 6 (1986). For decades, then, the Board has taken the view that nonmonetary remuneration is "not... included in compensation under the [Act] unless the employer and employee first agree to [its] dollar value... and then agree that this dollar value shall be part of the employee's compensation package." Ibid. None of these preconditions would be needed, of course, if the Act automatically taxed in-kind benefits as the government and dissent insist.
Finally, the government seeks Chevron deference for a more recent IRS interpretation treating "compensation" under the Act as having "the same meaning as the term wages in" FICA "except as specifically limited by the Railroad Retirement Tax Act." 26 C.F.R. § 31.3231(e)-1 (2017). But in light of all the textual and structural clues before us, we think it's clear enough that the term "money" excludes "stock," leaving no ambiguity for the agency to fill. See Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843, n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). Nor does the regulation help the government even on its own terms. FICA's definition of wages-"all remuneration"-is "specifically limited by the Railroad Retirement Tax Act," which applies only to "money remuneration." So in the end all the regulation winds up saying is that everyone should look carefully at the relevant statutory texts. We agree, and that is what we have done.
The Court of Appeals in this case tried a different tack still, if over a dissent. The majority all but admitted that stock isn't money, but suggested it would make "good practical sense" for our statute to cover stock as well as money. 856 F.3d, at 492. Meanwhile, Judge Manion dissented, countering that it's a judge's job only to apply, not revise or update, the terms of statutes. See id., at 493. The Eighth Circuit made much the same point when it addressed the question. See Union Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 865 F.3d 1045, 1048-1049 (2017). Judge Manion and the Eighth Circuit were right. Written laws are meant to be understood and lived by. If a fog of uncertainty surrounded them, if their meaning could shift with the latest judicial whim, the point of reducing them to writing would be lost. That is why it's a "fundamental canon of statutory construction" that words generally should be "interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning... at the time Congress enacted the statute." Perrin, 444 U.S., at 42, 100 S.Ct. 311. Congress alone has the institutional competence, democratic legitimacy, and (most importantly) constitutional authority to revise statutes in light of new social problems and preferences. Until it exercises that power, the people may rely on the original meaning of the written law.
This hardly leaves us, as the dissent worries, "trapped in a monetary time warp, forever limited to those forms of money commonly used in the 1930's." Post, at 2076 (opinion of BREYER, J.). While every statute's meaning is fixed at the time of enactment, new applications may arise in light of changes in the world. So "money," as used in this statute, must always mean a "medium of exchange." But what qualifies as a "medium of exchange" may depend on the facts of the day. Take electronic transfers of paychecks. Maybe they weren't common in 1937, but we do not doubt they would qualify today as "money remuneration" under the statute's original public meaning. The problem with the government's and the dissent's position today is not that stock and stock options weren't common in 1937, but that they were not then-and are not now-recognized as mediums of exchange.
The judgment of the Seventh Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The case before us concerns taxable "compensation" under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act. The statute defines the statutory word "compensation" as including "any form of money remuneration paid to an individual for services rendered." 26 U.S.C. § 3231(e)(1). Does that phrase include stock options paid to railroad employees "for services rendered"? Ibid. In my view, the language itself is ambiguous but other traditional tools of statutory interpretation point to the answer, "yes." Consequently, the Government's interpretation of the language-which it has followed consistently since the inception of the statute-is lawful. I therefore dissent.
I
A stock option consists of a right to buy a specified amount of stock at a specific price. If that price is lower than the current market price of the stock, a holder of the option can exercise the option, buy the stock at the option price, and keep the stock, or he can buy the stock, sell it at the higher market price, and pocket the difference. Companies often compensate their employees in part by paying them with stock options, hoping that by doing so they will provide an incentive for their employees to work harder to increase the value of the company.
Employees at petitioners' companies who receive and exercise a stock option may keep the stock they buy as long as they wish. But they also have another choice called the "cashless exercise" method. App. 42. That method permits an employee to check a box on a form, thereby asking the company's financial agents to buy the stock (at the option price) and then immediately sell the stock (at the higher market price) with the proceeds deposited into the employee's bank account-just like a deposited paycheck. Ibid. About half (around 49%) of petitioners' employees used this method (or a variation of it) during the relevant time period. Separate App. of Plaintiffs-Appellants in No. 16-3300 (CA7), p. 45. The Solicitor General tells us that many more employees at other railroads also use this "cashless exercise" method-93% in the case of CSX, 90% to 95% in the case of BNSF. Brief for United States 20 (citing CSX Corp. v. United States, 2017 WL 2800181, *2 (M.D.Fla., May 2, 2017), and BNSF R. Co. v. United States, 775 F.3d 743, 747 (C.A.5 2015) ).
II
A
Does a stock option received by an employee (along with, say, a paycheck) count as a "form"-some form, "any form"-of "money remuneration?" The railroads, as the majority notes, believe they can find the answer to this question by engaging in (and winning) a war of 1930's dictionaries. I am less sanguine. True, some of those dictionaries say that "money" primarily refers to currency or promissory documents used as "a medium of exchange." See ante, at 2070 - 2071. But even this definition has its ambiguities. A railroad employee cannot use her paycheck as a "medium of exchange." She cannot hand it over to a cashier at the grocery store; she must first deposit it. The same is true of stock, which must be converted into cash and deposited in the employee's account before she can enjoy its monetary value. Moreover, what we view as money has changed over time. Cowrie shells once were such a medium but no longer are, see J. Weatherford, The History of Money 24 (1997); our currency originally included gold coins and bullion, but, after 1934, gold could not be used as a medium of exchange, see Gold Reserve Act of 1934, ch. 6, § 2, 48 Stat. 337; perhaps one day employees will be paid in Bitcoin or some other type of cryptocurrency, see F. Martin, Money: The Unauthorized Biography-From Coinage to Cryptocurrencies 275-278 (1st Vintage Books ed. 2015). Nothing in the statute suggests the meaning of this provision should be trapped in a monetary time warp, forever limited to those forms of money commonly used in the 1930's.
Regardless, the formal "medium of exchange" definition is not the only dictionary definition of "money," now or then. The Oxford English Dictionary, for example, included in its definition "property or possessions of any kind viewed as convertible into money," 6 Oxford English Dictionary 603 (1st ed. 1933); Black's Law Dictionary said that money was the representative of "everything that can be transferred in commerce," Black's Law Dictionary 1200 (3d ed. 1933); and the New Century Dictionary defined money as "property considered with reference to its pecuniary value," 1 New Century Dictionary of the English Language 1083 (1933). Although the majority brushes these definitions aside as contrary to the term's "ordinary usage," ante, at 2072, a broader understanding of money is perfectly intuitive-particularly in the context of compensation. Indeed, many of the country's top executives are compensated in both cash and stock or stock options. Often, as is the case with the president of petitioners' parent company, executives' stock-based compensation far exceeds their cash salary. Brief for United States 6-7. But if you were to ask (on, say, a mortgage application) how much money one of those executives made last year, it would make no sense to leave the stock and stock options out of the calculation.
So, where does this duel of definitions lead us? Some seem too narrow; some seem too broad; some seem indeterminate. The result is ambiguity. Were it up to me to choose based only on what I have discussed so far, I would say that a stock option is a "form of money remuneration." Why? Because for many employees it almost immediately takes the form of an increased bank balance, because it strongly resembles a paycheck in this respect, and because the statute refers to "any form " of money remuneration. A paycheck is not money, but it is a means of remunerating employees monetarily. The same can be said of stock options.
B
Fortunately, we have yet more tools in our interpretive arsenal, namely, all the "traditional tools of statutory construction." INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 446, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987). Let us look to purpose. What could Congress' purpose have been when it used the word "money"? The most obvious purpose would be to exclude certain in-kind benefits that are nonmonetary-either because they are nontransferrable or otherwise difficult to value. When Congress enacted the statute, it was common for railroad workers to receive free transportation for life. Taxation of Interstate Carriers and Employees: Hearings on H.R. 8652 before the House Committee on Ways and Means, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 6 (1935). Unlike stock options, it would have been difficult to value this benefit. And even very broad definitions of "money" would seem to exclude it. E.g., 6 Oxford English Dictionary, at 603.
Another interpretive tool, the statute's history, tends to confirm this view of the statutory purpose (and further supports inclusion of stock options for that reason). An earlier version of the Act explicitly excluded from taxation any "free transportation," along with such in-kind benefits as "board, rents, housing, [and] lodging" provided that their value was less than $10 per month (about $185 per month today). S. 2862, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., § 1(e), p. 3 (1935). In other words, they were incidental benefits that were particularly difficult to value. Congress later dropped these specific provisions from the bill on the ground that they were "superfluous." S. Rep. No. 697, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., 8 (1937).
Excluding stock options from taxation under the statute would not further this basic purpose and would be inconsistent with this aspect of the statute's history, for stock options are financial instruments. They can readily be bought and sold, they are not benefits in kind (i.e., they have no value to employees other than their financial value), and-compared to, say, meals or spontaneous train trips-they are not particularly difficult to value.
Nor is it easy to see what purpose the majority's interpretation would serve. Congress designed the Act to provide a financially stable, self-sustaining system of retirement benefits for railroad employees. See S. Rep. No. 6, 83d Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 1, pp. 64-65 (1953); see also 2 Staff of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce and the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 92d Cong., 2d Sess., 12-15 (Jt. Comm. Print 1972) (describing financial difficulties facing the private railroad pension programs that Congress sought to replace). Nevertheless, petitioners speculate that Congress intended to limit the Act's tax base to employees' "regular pay" because that more closely resembled the way private pensions in the railroad industry calculated a retiree's annuity. Brief for Petitioners 8. But the Act taxes not simply monthly paychecks but also bonuses, commissions, and contributions to an employee's retirement account (like a 401(k)), see §§ 3231(e)(1), (8) -none of which were customarily considered in railroad pension calculations. Why distinguish stock options from these other forms of money remuneration-particularly when almost half the employees who participated in petitioners' stock option plan (and nearly all such employees at other railroads) have the option's value paid directly into their bank accounts in cash? See supra, at 2075 - 2076.
The statute's structure as later amended offers further support. That is because a later amendment expressly excluded from taxation certain stock options, namely, "[q]ualified stock options," see § 3231(e)(12), which tax law treats more favorably (and which are also excluded from the Social Security tax base, § 3121(a)(22)). What need would there be to exclude expressly a subset of stock options if the statute already excluded all stock options from its coverage? The same is true of certain in-kind benefits, such as life-insurance premiums. See § 3231(e)(1)(i). Congress has more recently amended the statute to exclude expressly other hard-to-value fringe benefits. See § 3231(e)(5). Again what need would there be to do so if all noncash benefits, including stock options, were already excluded?
C
There are, of course, counterarguments and other considerations, which the majority sets forth in its opinion. The majority asserts, for example, that Congress must have intended the Act to be read more narrowly because, shortly after enacting the statutory language at issue in this dispute, Congress enacted the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA), which uses different language to establish its tax base. The Railroad Retirement Tax Act defines "compensation" in part as "any form of money remuneration," § 3231(e)(1) while FICA defines "wages" as including the "cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash," § 3121(a). But there is no canon of interpretation forbidding Congress to use different words in different statutes to mean somewhat the same thing. See Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 568 U.S. 519, 540, 133 S.Ct. 1351, 185 L.Ed.2d 392 (2013). And the meaning of the statutory terms as I read them are not identical, given FICA's definition of "wages" would include those types of noncash benefits that the Railroad Retirement Tax Act exempts from taxation. See supra, at 2076 - 2077.
At most, this conflicting statutory language leaves the meaning of "money remuneration" unclear. In these circumstances, I would give weight to the interpretation of the Government agency that Congress charged with administering the statute. "Where a statute leaves a 'gap' or is 'ambiguous' we typically interpret it as granting the agency leeway to enact rules that are reasonable in light of the text, nature, and purpose of the statute." Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, 579 U.S. ----, ----, 136 S.Ct. 2131, 2142, 195 L.Ed.2d 423 (2016) (citing United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 229, 121 S.Ct. 2164, 150 L.Ed.2d 292 (2001) ; Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984) ). And even outside that framework, I would find the agency's views here particularly persuasive. Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 139-140, 65 S.Ct. 161, 89 L.Ed. 124 (1944). The interpretation was made contemporaneously with the enactment of the statute itself, Norwegian Nitrogen Products Co. v. United States, 288 U.S. 294, 315, 53 S.Ct. 350, 77 L.Ed. 796 (1933), and the Government has not since interpreted the statute in a way that directly contradicts that contemporaneous interpretation, see, e.g., Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S., at 446, n. 30, 107 S.Ct. 1207 ; Watt v. Alaska, 451 U.S. 259, 272-273, 101 S.Ct. 1673, 68 L.Ed.2d 80 (1981). Congress, over a period of nearly 90 years, has never revised or repealed the agencies' interpretation, despite modifying other provisions in the statute, which " 'is persuasive evidence that the interpretation is the one intended by Congress.' " Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Schor, 478 U.S. 833, 846, 106 S.Ct. 3245, 92 L.Ed.2d 675 (1986) (quoting NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co., 416 U.S. 267, 274-275, 94 S.Ct. 1757, 40 L.Ed.2d 134 (1974) ). Nor did the railroad industry object to the taxation of stock options based on the Government's interpretation until recent years. See, e.g., Union Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 2016 WL 3647851, *---- - *----, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86023, *4-*5 (D Neb., July 1, 2016) (noting that Union Pacific began issuing stock options in tax year 1981 and paid railroad retirement taxes on them for decades, challenging the Government's interpretation only in 2014).
What is that interpretation? Shortly after the Act was passed, the Department of Treasury issued a regulation defining the term "compensation" in the Act as reaching both "all remuneration in money, or in something which may be used in lieu of money (scrip and merchandise orders, for example)." 26 C.F.R. § 410.5 (1938). In the 1930's, "scrip" could refer to "[c]ertificates of ownership, either absolute or conditional, of shares in a public company, corporate profits, etc." Black's Law Dictionary, at 1588; C. Alsager, Dictionary of Business Terms 321 (1932) ("A certificate which represents fractions of shares of stock"); 3 F. Stroud, Judicial Dictionary 1802 (2d ed. 1903) ("a [c]ertificate, transferable by delivery, entitling its holder to become a Shareholder or Bondholder in
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | L | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
PER CURIAM.
Michael Wearry is on Louisiana's death row. Urging that the prosecution failed to disclose evidence supporting his innocence and that his counsel provided ineffective assistance at trial, Wearry unsuccessfully sought postconviction relief in state court. Contrary to the state postconviction court, we conclude that the prosecution's failure to disclose material evidence violated Wearry's due process rights. We reverse the state postconviction court's judgment on that account, and therefore do not reach Wearry's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim.
I
A
Sometime between 8:20 and 9:30 on the evening of April 4, 1998, Eric Walber was brutally murdered. Nearly two years after the murder, Sam Scott, at the time incarcerated, contacted authorities and implicated Michael Wearry. Scott initially reported that he had been friends with the victim; that he was at work the night of the murder; that the victim had come looking for him but had instead run into Wearry and four others; and that Wearry and the others had later confessed to shooting and driving over the victim before leaving his body on Blahut Road. In fact, the victim had not been shot, and his body had been found on Crisp Road.
Scott changed his account of the crime over the course of four later statements, each of which differed from the others in material ways. By the time Scott testified as the State's star witness at Wearry's trial, his story bore little resemblance to his original account. According to the version Scott told the jury, he had been playing dice with Wearry and others when the victim drove past. Wearry, who had been losing, decided to rob the victim. After Wearry and an acquaintance, Randy Hutchinson, stopped the victim's car, Hutchinson shoved the victim into the cargo area. Five men, including Scott, Hutchinson, and Wearry, proceeded to drive around, at one point encountering Eric Brown-the State's other main witness-and pausing intermittently to assault the victim. Finally, Scott related, Wearry and two others killed the victim by running him over. On cross-examination, Scott admitted that he had changed his account several times.
Consistent with Scott's testimony, Brown testified that on the night of the murder he had seen Wearry and others with a man who looked like the victim. Incarcerated on unrelated charges at the time of Wearry's trial, Brown acknowledged that he had made a prior inconsistent statement to the police, but had recanted and agreed to testify against Wearry, not for any prosecutorial favor, but solely because his sister knew the victim's sister. The State commented during its opening argument that Brown "is doing 15 years on a drug charge right now, [but] hasn't asked for a thing." 7 Record 1723 (Tr., Mar. 2, 2002). During closing argument, the State reiterated that Brown "has no deal on the table" and was testifying because the victim's "family deserves to know." Pet. for Cert. 19.
Although the State presented no physical evidence at trial, it did offer additional circumstantial evidence linking Wearry to the victim. One witness testified that he saw Wearry in the victim's car on the night of the murder and, later, holding the victim's class ring. Another witness said he saw Wearry throwing away the victim's cologne. In some respects, however, these witnesses contradicted Scott's account. For example, the witness who reported seeing Wearry in the victim's car did not place Scott in the car.
Wearry's defense at trial rested on an alibi. He claimed that, at the time of the murder, he had been at a wedding reception in Baton Rouge, 40 miles away. Wearry's girlfriend, her sister, and her aunt corroborated Wearry's account. In closing argument, the State stressed that all three witnesses had personal relationships with Wearry. The State also presented two rebuttal witnesses: the bride at the wedding, who reported that the reception had ended by 8:30 or 9:00 (potentially leaving sufficient time for Wearry to have committed the crime); and three jail employees, who testified that they had overheard Wearry say that he was a bystander when the crime occurred.
The jury convicted Wearry of capital murder and sentenced him to death. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal.
B
After Wearry's conviction became final, it emerged that the prosecution had withheld relevant information that could have advanced Wearry's plea. Wearry argued during state postconviction proceedings that three categories of belatedly revealed information would have undermined the prosecution and materially aided Wearry's defense at trial.
First, previously undisclosed police records showed that two of Scott's fellow inmates had made statements that cast doubt on Scott's credibility. One inmate had reported hearing Scott say that he wanted to "'make sure [Wearry] gets the needle cause he jacked over me.' " Id., at 22 (quoting inmate affidavit). The other inmate had told investigators-at a meeting Scott orchestrated-that he had witnessed the murder, but this inmate recanted the next day. "Scott had told him what to say," he explained, and had suggested that lying about having witnessed the murder "would help him get out of jail." Pet. Exh. 13 in No. 01-FELN-015992, pp. 104, 107. See also Pet. for Cert. 22 (quoting police notes).
Second, the State had failed to disclose that, contrary to the prosecution's assertions at trial, Brown had twice sought a deal to reduce his existing sentence in exchange for testifying against Wearry. The police had told Brown that they would " 'talk to the D.A. if he told the truth.' " Pet. for Cert. 19 (quoting police notes).
Third, the prosecution had failed to turn over medical records on Randy Hutchinson. According to Scott, on the night of the murder, Hutchinson had run into the street to flag down the victim, pulled the victim out of his car, shoved him into the cargo space, and crawled into the cargo space himself. But Hutchinson's medical records revealed that, nine days before the murder, Hutchinson had undergone knee surgery to repair a ruptured patellar tendon. Id., at 10-11, 15-16, 32. An expert witness, Dr. Paul Dworak, testified at the state collateral-review hearing that Hutchinson's surgically repaired knee could not have withstood running, bending, or lifting substantial weight. The State presented an expert witness who disagreed with Dr. Dworak's appraisal of Hutchinson's physical fitness.
During state postconviction proceedings, Wearry also maintained that his trial attorney had failed to uncover exonerating evidence. Wearry's trial attorney admitted at the state collateral-review hearing that he had conducted no independent investigation into Wearry's innocence and had relied solely on evidence the State and Wearry had provided. For example, despite Wearry's alibi, his attorney undertook no effort to locate independent witnesses from among the dozens of guests who had attended the wedding reception.
Counsel representing Wearry on collateral review conducted an independent investigation. This investigation revealed many witnesses lacking any personal relationship with Wearry who would have been willing to corroborate his alibi had they been called at trial. Collateral-review counsel's investigation also revealed that Scott's brother and sister-in-law would have been willing to testify at trial, as they did at the collateral-review hearing, that Scott was with them, mostly at a strawberry festival, until around 11:00 on the night of the murder.
Based on this new evidence, Wearry alleged violations of his due process rights under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. Acknowledging that the State "probably ought to have" disclosed the withheld evidence, App. to Pet. for Cert. B-6, and that Wearry's counsel provided "perhaps not the best defense that could have been rendered," id., at B-5, the postconviction court denied relief. Even if Wearry's constitutional rights were violated, the court concluded, he had not shown prejudice. Id., at B-5, B-7. In turn, the Louisiana Supreme Court also denied relief. Id., at A-1. Chief Justice Johnson would have granted Wearry's petition on the ground that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Id., at A-2.
II
Because we conclude that the Louisiana courts' denial of Wearry's Brady claim runs up against settled constitutional principles, and because a new trial is required as a result, we need not and do not consider the merits of his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. "[T]he suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." Brady, supra, at 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194. See also Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 153-154, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972)(clarifying that the rule stated in Brady applies to evidence undermining witness credibility). Evidence qualifies as material when there is " 'any reasonable likelihood' " it could have " 'affected the judgment of the jury.' " Giglio, supra, at 154, 92 S.Ct. 763(quoting Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 271, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959)). To prevail on his Brady claim, Wearry need not show that he "more likely than not" would have been acquitted had the new evidence been admitted. Smith v. Cain, 565 U.S. 73, ---- - ----, 132 S.Ct. 627, 629-631, 181 L.Ed.2d 571 (2012)(internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). He must show only that the new evidence is sufficient to "undermine confidence" in the verdict. Ibid.
Beyond doubt, the newly revealed evidence suffices to undermine confidence in Wearry's conviction. The State's trial evidence resembles a house of cards, built on the jury crediting Scott's account rather than Wearry's alibi. See United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 113, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976)("[I]f the verdict is already of questionable validity, additional evidence of relatively minor importance might be sufficient to create a reasonable doubt."). The dissent asserts that, apart from the testimony of Scott and Brown, there was independent evidence pointing to Wearry as the murderer. See post, at 1010 (opinion of ALITO, J.). But all of the evidence the dissent cites suggests, at most, that someone in Wearry's group of friends may have committed the crime, and that Wearry may have been involved in events related to the murder after it occurred. Perhaps, on the basis of this evidence, Louisiana might have charged Wearry as an accessory after the fact. La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 14:25 (West 2007)(providing a maximum prison term of five years for accessories after the fact). But Louisiana instead charged Wearry with capital murder, and the only evidence directly tying him to that crime was Scott's dubious testimony, corroborated by the similarly suspect testimony of Brown.
As the dissent recognizes, "Scott did not have an exemplary record of veracity." Post, at 1009. Scott's credibility, already impugned by his many inconsistent stories, would have been further diminished had the jury learned that Hutchinson may have been physically incapable of performing the role Scott ascribed to him, that Scott had coached another inmate to lie about the murder and thereby enhance his chances to get out of jail, or that Scott may have implicated Wearry to settle a personal score. Moreover, any juror who found Scott more credible in light of Brown's testimony might have thought differently had she learned that Brown may have been motivated to come forward not by his sister's relationship with the victim's sister-as the prosecution had insisted in its closing argument-but by the possibility of a reduced sentence on an existing conviction. See Napue, supra, at 270, 79 S.Ct. 1173(even though the State had made no binding promises, a witness' attempt to obtain a deal before testifying was material because the jury "might well have concluded that [the witness] had fabricated testimony in order to curry the [prosecution's] favor"). Even if the jury-armed with all of this new evidence-could have voted to convict Wearry, we have "no confidence that it would have done so." Smith, supra, at 1009, 132 S.Ct. at 630.
Reaching the opposite conclusion, the state postconviction court improperly evaluated the materiality of each piece of evidence in isolation rather than cumulatively, see Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 441, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995)(requiring a "cumulative evaluation" of the materiality of wrongfully withheld evidence), emphasized reasons a juror might disregard new evidence while ignoring reasons she might not, cf. Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 30, 43, 130 S.Ct. 447, 175 L.Ed.2d 398 (2009)(per curiam ) ("it was not reasonable to discount entirely the effect that [a defendant's expert's] testimony might have had on the jury" just because the State's expert provided contrary testimony), and failed even to mention the statements of the two inmates impeaching Scott.
III
In addition to defending the judgment of the Louisiana courts, the dissent criticizes the Court for deciding this "intensely factual question... without full briefing and argument." Post, at 1011. But the Court has not shied away from summarily deciding fact-intensive cases where, as here, lower courts have egregiously misapplied settled law. See, e.g., Mullenix v. Luna, ante, at --- U.S. ----, ----, 136 S.Ct. 305, 311, 193 L.Ed.2d 255 (2015)(per curiam ); Stanton v. Sims, 571 U.S. ----, 134 S.Ct. 3, 187 L.Ed.2d 341 (2013)(per curiam ); Parker v. Matthews, 567 U.S. ----, 132 S.Ct. 2148, 183 L.Ed.2d 32 (2012)(per curiam ); Coleman v. Johnson, 566 U.S. ----, 132 S.Ct. 2060, 182 L.Ed.2d 978 (2012)(per curiam ); Wetzel v. Lambert, 565 U.S. ----, 132 S.Ct. 1195, 182 L.Ed.2d 35 (2012)(per curiam ); Ryburn v. Huff, 565 U.S. ----, 132 S.Ct. 987, 181 L.Ed.2d 966 (2012)(per curiam ); Sears v. Upton, 561 U.S. 945, 130 S.Ct. 3259, 177 L.Ed.2d 1025 (2010)(per curiam ); Porter v. McCollum, supra.
Because "[t]he petition does not... fall into a category in which the Court has previously evinced an inclination to police factbound errors," the dissent continues, "nothing warned the State," when it was drafting its brief in opposition, that the Court might summarily reverse Wearry's conviction. Post, at 1010 - 1011. Contrary to the dissent, however, summarily deciding a capital case, when circumstances so warrant, is hardly unprecedented. See Sears, supra, at 951-952, 130 S.Ct. 3259(vacating a state postconviction court's denial of relief on a penalty-phase ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim); Porter, supra, at 38-40, 130 S.Ct. 447(attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel by conducting a constitutionally inadequate investigation into mitigating evidence). Perhaps anticipating the possibility of summary reversal, the State devoted the bulk of its 30-page brief in opposition to a point-by-point rebuttal of Wearry's claims. Given this brief, as well as the State's lower court filings similarly concentrating on evidence supporting its position, the chances that further briefing or argument would change the outcome are vanishingly slim.
The dissent also inveighs against the Court's "depart[ure] from our usual procedures... [to] decide petitioner's fact-intensive Brady claim at this stage... [rather than] allow[ing] petitioner to raise that claim in a federal habeas proceeding." Post, at 1011. This Court, of course, has jurisdiction over the final judgments of state postconviction courts, see 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a), and exercises that jurisdiction in appropriate circumstances. Earlier this Term, for instance, we heard argument in Foster v. Chatman, No. 14-8349, which involves the Georgia courts' denial of postconviction relief to a capital defendant raising a claim under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). See also Smith, 565 U.S., at ----, 132 S.Ct., at 629-630(reversing a state postconviction court's denial of relief on a Brady claim); Sears, supra, at 946, 130 S.Ct. 3259. Reviewing the Louisiana courts' denial of postconviction relief is thus hardly the bold departure the dissent paints it to be. The alternative to granting review, after all, is forcing Wearry to endure yet more time on Louisiana's death row in service of a conviction that is constitutionally flawed.
* * *
Because Wearry's due process rights were violated, we grant his petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, reverse the judgment of the Louisiana postconviction court, and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice ALITO, with whom Justice THOMASjoins, dissenting.
Without briefing or argument, the Court reverses a 14-year-old murder conviction on the ground that the prosecution violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), by failing to turn over certain information that tended to exculpate petitioner. There is no question in my mind that the prosecution should have disclosed this information, but whether the information was sufficient to warrant reversing petitioner's conviction is another matter. The failure to turn over exculpatory information violates due process only " 'if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.' " Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 433-434, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995)(quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985)(opinion of Blackmun, J.)).
The Court argues that the information in question here could have affected the jury's verdict and that petitioner's conviction must therefore be reversed. The Court ably makes the case for reversal, but there is a reasonable contrary argument that petitioner's conviction should stand because the undisclosed information would not have affected the jury's verdict. I will briefly discuss the main points made in the per curiam, not for the purpose of showing that they are necessarily wrong, but to show that the Brady issue is not open and shut. For good reason, we generally do not decide cases without allowing the parties to file briefs and present argument. Questions that seem quite simple at first glance sometimes look very different after both sides are given a chance to make their case. Of course, this process means extra work for the Court. But it leads to better results, and it gives the losing side the satisfaction of knowing that at least its arguments have been fully heard. There is no justification for departing from our usual procedures in this case.
I
The first item of information discussed by the Court is a police report that recounts statements made about Sam Scott, a key witness for the prosecution, by a fellow inmate. According to this report, Scott told the inmate: "I'm gonna make sure Mike [i.e., petitioner] gets the needle cause he jacked over me." Pet. Exh. 13 in No. 01-FELN-015992, p. 103. Scott, who had been serving a sentence on unrelated drug charges, reportedly told the inmate that he had been expecting to be released but that he "still [had not] gone home because of this," i.e., petitioner's prosecution. Id., at 102. As stated in the report, Scott said that he was now facing the possibility of a 10-year sentence, apparently for his admitted role in the events surrounding the murder. The report did not provide any further explanation for Scott's alleged statement that petitioner had "jacked [him] over."
The Court reads the report to suggest that Scott implicated petitioner in the murder "to settle a personal score." Ante, at 1012. But if petitioner's counsel had actually attempted to use this evidence at trial, the net effect might well have been harmful, not helpful, to the defense. The undisclosed police report on which the Court relies may be read to mean that Scott blamed petitioner for putting him in the position of having to admit his own role in the events surrounding the murder and thereby expose himself to the 10-year sentence and lose an opportunity to secure early release from prison on the drug charges. If defense counsel had attempted to impeach Scott with this police report, the effort could have backfired by allowing the prosecution to return the jury's focus to a point the State emphasized often during trial, namely, that Scott's accusations were credible precisely because Scott had no motive to tell a story that was contrary to his own interests. See, e.g., 10 Record 2307 (Tr., Mar. 5, 2002) ("If [Scott] keeps his mouth shut, he is out in less than five more months.... [But] [i]nstead of getting out in 180 days, he is going to be doing more time").
The Court next turns to an allegation that Scott had coached another prisoner to make up lies against petitioner. This prisoner never testified at trial, and there is a basis for arguing that this information would not have made a difference to the jury, which was well aware that Scott did not have an exemplary record of veracity. Scott himself admitted to fabricating information that he told the police during their investigations. In addition, a witness who did testify against petitioner at trial also accused Scott of asking him to lie, although admittedly this witness later denied making this accusation. Given that the jury convicted even with these quite serious strikes against Scott's credibility, there is reason to question whether the jury would have seriously considered a different verdict because of an accusation from someone who never took the stand.
Third, the Court observes that the prosecution failed to turn over evidence that another witness, Eric Brown, had asked for favorable treatment from the district attorney in exchange for testifying against petitioner. It is true-and troubling-that the prosecutor claimed in her opening statement that Brown had not sought favorable treatment. But even so, it is far from clear that disclosing the contradictory information had real potential to affect the trial's outcome. For one thing, there is no evidence that Brown (unlike Scott) actually received any deal, despite defense counsel's efforts in cross-examination to establish that Brown's testimony might have earned him leniency from the State. Moreover, Brown admitted during the exchange that he had manipulated his initial story to the police to avoid implicating himself in criminal activity. We know, then, that the jury harbored no illusions about the purity of Brown's motives, notwithstanding the prosecutor's opening misstatement.
Finally, the Court says that the medical records of Randy Hutchinson would have cast doubt on Scott's trial testimony that Hutchinson repeatedly dragged the victim into and out of a car and bludgeoned him with a stick. The records reveal that Hutchinson had knee surgery to repair his patellar tendon just nine days before the murder. But one of the State's witnesses testified at trial that he had seen records showing that Hutchinson had had surgery on his knee "about nine days before the homicide happened." 10 Record 2261 (Tr., Mar. 5, 2002); see also id., at 2263. The jury thus knew the most salient fact revealed by these records-that Scott had attributed significant strength and mobility to a man nine days removed from knee surgery. Given that these particular details about Hutchinson's actions were a relatively minor part of Scott's account of the crime and the State's case against petitioner, the significance of the undisclosed medical records is subject to reasonable dispute.
While the Court highlights the exculpatory quality of the withheld information, the Court downplays the considerable evidence of petitioner's guilt. Aside from Scott's and Brown's testimony, three witnesses told the jury that they saw petitioner and others driving around shortly after the murder in the victim's red car, which according to one of these witnesses had blood on its exterior. Petitioner offered to sell an Albany High School class ring to one of these witnesses and a set of new speakers to another. The third witness said he saw petitioner throw away a bottle of Tommy Hilfiger cologne. Meanwhile, the victim's mother testified that her son wore an Albany High class ring that was not recovered with his body, had received speakers as a gift shortly before his murder, and had a bottle of Tommy Hilfiger cologne with him on the night when he was killed. In addition, three jailers testified that petitioner called his father after his eventual arrest and stated that "he didn't know what he was doing in jail because he didn't do anything [and] was just an innocent bystander." 9 Record 2120 (Tr., Mar. 4, 2002); see also id., at 2124, 2126.
In short, this is far from a case in which the withheld information would have allowed the defense to undermine "the only evidence linking [petitioner] to the crime." Smith v. Cain, 565 U.S. 73, ----, 132 S.Ct. 627, 630, 181 L.Ed.2d 571 (2012).
II
Whether disclosing the information at issue realistically could have changed the trial's outcome is indisputably an intensely factual question. Under Brady, we must evaluate the significance of the withheld information in light of all the proof at petitioner's trial. See Kyles, 514 U.S., at 435, 115 S.Ct. 1555(Brady is violated when the withheld "evidence could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict" (emphasis added)); United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 112, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976)(Brady materiality "must be evaluated in the context of the entire record " (emphasis added)). It is unusual and, in my judgment, unreasonable for us to decide such a question without full briefing and argument.
At this stage, all that we have from the State is its brief in opposition to the petition for certiorari. And the State had ample reason to believe when it submitted that brief that the question on the table was whether the Court should hear the case, not whether petitioner's conviction should be reversed. The State undoubtedly knew that we generally deny certiorari on factbound questions that do not implicate any disputed legal issue. See, e.g., this Court's Rule 10; S. Shapiro, K. Geller, T. Bishop, E. Hartnett, & D. Himmelfarb, Supreme Court Practice § 5.12(c)(3), p. 352 (10th ed. 2013). Nothing warned the State that this petition was likely to produce an exception to that general rule. The petition does not, for instance, fall into a category in which the Court has previously evinced an inclination to police factbound errors. Cf. Cash v. Maxwell, 565 U.S. ----, ----, 132 S.Ct. 611, 616-617, 181 L.Ed.2d 785 (2012)(Scalia, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (listing cases from one such category).
To the contrary, we have previously told litigants that petitions like the one here, challenging a state court's denial of postconviction relief, are particularly unlikely to be granted: We " 'rarely gran[t] review at this stage' " of litigation, even when a petition raises " 'arguably meritorious federal constitutional claims,' " because we prefer that the claims be reviewed first by a district court and court of appeals in a federal habeas proceeding. Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327, 335, 127 S.Ct. 1079, 166 L.Ed.2d 924 (2007)(quoting Kyles v. Whitley, 498 U.S. 931, 932, 111 S.Ct. 333, 112 L.Ed.2d 298 (1990)(Stevens, J., concurring in denial of stay of execution)).
Why, then, has the Court decided to depart from our usual procedures and decide petitioner's fact-intensive Brady claim at this stage? Why not allow petitioner to raise that claim in a federal habeas proceeding? If the case took that course, it would not reach us until a district court and a court of appeals had studied the record and evaluated the likely impact of the information in question.
One consequence of waiting until the claim was raised in a federal habeas proceeding is that our review would then be governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Under AEDPA, relief could be granted only if it could be said that the state court's rejection of the claim represented an "unreasonable application" of Brady. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). By intervening now before AEDPA comes into play, the Court avoids the application of that standard and is able to exercise plenary review. But if the Brady claim is as open-and-shut as the Court maintains, AEDPA would not present an obstacle to the granting of habeas relief. On the other hand, if reasonable jurists could disagree about the application of Brady to the facts of this case, there is no good reason to dispose of this case summarily. The State should be given the opportunity to make its full case.
In my view, therefore, summary reversal is highly inappropriate. The Court is anxious to vacate petitioner's conviction before the State has the opportunity to make its case. But if we are going to intervene at this stage, we should grant the petition and hear the case on the merits. There is room on our docket to give this case the careful consideration it deserves.
Wearry argued, inter alia, that the trial court improperly denied his for-cause challenges, and that the prosecution discriminated on the basis of race in jury selection in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). Finding both jury-selection claims credible, then-Justice Johnson dissented from the affirmance of Wearry's conviction. State v. Weary, 2003-3067 (La.4/2/06), 931 So.2d 297, 328-337. (Wearry's name is misspelled in the direct-appeal case caption.)
Illustrative of the liberties the dissent takes with the record is the assertion that "Scott blamed [Wearry] for putting him in the position of having to admit his own role in the events surrounding the murder." Post, at 1009 (opinion of ALITO, J.). Introducing the inmate's statement, the dissent therefore suggests, might have "backfired by allowing the prosecution to return the jury's focus to a point the State emphasized often during trial, namely, that Scott's accusations were credible precisely because Scott had no motive to tell a story that was contrary to his own interests." Id., at 1009 - 1010. True, according to the inmate, Scott had complained that his identification of Wearry had resulted in a lengthier prison term. The inmate, however, did not suggest that Scott was angry with Wearry because he had suffered adverse consequences as a result of Wearry's crime. Instead, the inmate separately stated that Scott "wouldn't tell me who did it"-i.e., who killed Eric Walber-"but he said I'm gonna make sure Mike gets the needle cause he jacked over me." Pet. Exh. 13 in No. 01-FELN-015992, p. 103. See also ibid. ("If [Scott] would have told me who did this I would tell because I have a heart and what they did wasn't right"). Scott's refusal to identify Wearry as the culprit-while also endeavoring to "make sure Mike gets the needle," ibid. -suggests that wearry did not commit the crime, but Scott had decided to bring him down anyway. Nor, contrary to the dissent, is there any reason to believe that Scott anticipated his participation in this case would cost him additional years in prison. Notably, in the first of his five accounts to police, Scott reported that he had not been present at the time of the murder and had learned about it only after the fact. Indeed, it is at least as plausible as the dissent's hypothesis that Scott believed implicating Wearry might win him early release on his existing conviction.
The dissent emphasizes a State's witness' testimony that "Hutchinson had had surgery on his knee 'about nine days before the homicide happened.' " Post, at 1010 (quoting 10 Record 2261 (Tr., Mar. 5, 2002)). But from this witness' statement, neither Wearry nor the jury had any way of knowing what the medical records would have revealed: Hutchinson had undergone a patellar-tendon repair rather than a routine minor procedure.
Wearry's trial attorney did ask the public defender's investigator to look into the backgrounds of the State's witnesses and to speak with Wearry's family members. But the attorney testified at the collateral-review hearing that he did not know what persons the investigator contacted and, in any event, he had serious doubts about the investigator's qualifications and competence. Moreover, there is no indication that the investigator ever engaged in inquiries regarding Scott's background or his whereabouts on the night of the murder.
Justice Crichton would have granted Wearry's petition and remanded for the trial court to address his claim of intellectual disability under Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002). App. to Pet. for Cert. A-15. Wearry does not raise his Atkins claim in his petition for a writ of certiorari.
Given this legal standard, Wearry can prevail even if, as the dissent suggests, the undisclosed information may not have affected the jury's verdict.
As for the three jailers who testified to overhearing Wearry call himself an "innocent bystander," post, at 1010, so characterizing oneself is the opposite of an admission of guilt.
Because the inmate who told police that Scott may have wanted to settle a score did so close to the
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Reed
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This action by petitioner, a customer, against respondents, partners in a securities brokerage firm, was brought in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, to recover damages under § 12 (2) of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint alleged that on or about January 17, 1951, through the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, petitioner was induced by Hayden, Stone and Company to purchase 1,600 shares of the common stock of Air Associates, Incorporated, by false representations that pursuant to a merger contract with the Borg Warner Corporation, Air Associates’ stock would be valued at $6.00 per share over the then current market price, and that financial interests were buying up the stock for the speculative profit. It was alleged that he was not told that Haven B. Page (also named as a defendant but not involved in this review), a director of, and counsel for, Air Associates was then selling his own Air Associates’ stock, including some or all that petitioner purchased. Two weeks after the purchase, petitioner disposed of the stock at a loss. Claiming that the loss was due to the firm’s misrepresentations and omission of information concerning Mr. Page, he sought damages.
Without answering the complaint, the respondent moved to stay the trial of the action pursuant to § 3 of the United States Arbitration Act until an arbitration in accordance with the terms of identical margin agreements was had. An affidavit accompanied the motion stating that the parties’ relationship was controlled by the terms of the agreements and that while the firm was willing to arbitrate petitioner had failed to seek or proceed with any arbitration of the controversy.
Finding that the margin agreements provide that arbitration should be the method of settling all future controversies, the District Court held that the agreement to arbitrate deprived petitioner of the advantageous court remedy afforded by the Securities Act, and denied the stay. A divided Court of Appeals concluded that the Act did not prohibit the agreement to refer future controversies to arbitration, and reversed.
The question is whether an agreement to arbitrate a future controversy is a “condition, stipulation, or provision binding any person acquiring any security to waive compliance with any provision” of the Securities Act which § 14 declares “void.” We granted certiorari, 345 U. S. 969, to review this important and novel federal question affecting both the Securities Act and the United States Arbitration Act. Cf. Frost & Co. v. Coeur D’Alene Mines Corp., 312 U. S. 38, 40.
As the margin agreement in the light of the complaint evidenced a transaction in interstate commerce, no issue arises as to the applicability of the provisions of the United States Arbitration Act to this suit, based upon the Securities Act. 9 U. S. C. (Supp. V, 1952) § 2. Cf. Tejas Development Co. v. McGough Bros., 165 F. 2d 276, 278, with Agostini Bros. Bldg. Corp. v. United States, 142 F. 2d 854. See Sturges and Murphy, Some Confusing Matters Relating to Arbitration, 17 Law & Contemp. Prob.580.
In response to a Presidential message urging that there be added to the ancient rule of caveat emptor the further doctrine of “let the seller also beware,” Congress passed the Securities Act of 1933. Designed to protect investors, the Act requires issuers, underwriters, and dealers to make full and fair disclosure of the character of securities sold in interstate and foreign commerce and to prevent fraud in their sale. To effectuate this policy, § 12 (2) created a special right to recover for misrepresentation which differs substantially from the common-law action in that the seller is made to assume the burden of proving lack of scienter. The Act’s special right is enforceable in any court of competent jurisdiction — federal or state — and removal from a state court is prohibited. If suit be brought in a federal court, the purchaser has a wide choice of venue, the privilege of nation-wide service of process and the jurisdictional $3,000 requirement of diversity cases is inapplicable.
The United States Arbitration Act establishes by statute the desirability of arbitration as an alternative to the complications of litigation. The reports of both Houses on that Act stress the need for avoiding the delay and expense of litigation, and practice under its terms raises hope for its usefulness both in controversies based on statutes or on standards otherwise created. This hospitable attitude of legislatures and courts toward arbitration, however, does not solve our question as to the validity of petitioner’s stipulation by the margin agreements, set out below, to submit to arbitration controversies that might arise from the transactions.
Petitioner argues that § 14, note 6, supra, shows that the purpose of Congress was to assure that sellers could not maneuver buyers into a position that might weaken their ability to recover under the Securities Act. He contends that arbitration lacks the certainty of a suit at law under the Act to enforce his rights. He reasons that the arbitration paragraph of the margin agreement is a stipulation that waives “compliance with” the provision of the Securities Act, set out in the margin, conferring jurisdiction of suits and special powers.
Respondent asserts that arbitration is merely a form of trial to be used in lieu of a trial at law, and therefore no conflict exists between the Securities Act and the United States Arbitration Act either in their language or in the congressional purposes in their enactment. Each may function within its own scope, the former to protect investors and the latter to simplify recovery for actionable violations of law by issuers or dealers in securities.
Respondent is in agreement with the Court of Appeals that the margin agreement arbitration paragraph, note 15, supra, does not relieve the seller from either liability or burden of proof, note 1, supra, imposed by the Securities Act. We agree that in so far as the award in arbitration may be affected by legal requirements, statutes or common law, rather than by considerations of fairness, the provisions of the Securities Act control. This is true even though this proposed agreement has no requirement that the arbitrators follow the law. This agreement of the parties as to the effect of the Securities Act includes also acceptance of the invalidity of the paragraph of the margin agreement that relieves the respondent sellers of liability for all “representation or advice by you or your employees or agents regarding the purchase or sale by me of any property . . .
The words of § 14, note 6, supra, void any “stipulation” waiving compliance with any “provision” of the Securities Act. This arrangement to arbitrate is a “stipulation,” and we think the right to select the judicial forum is the kind of “provision” that cannot be waived under § 14 of the Securities Act. That conclusion is reached for the reasons set out above in the statement of petitioner’s contention on this review. While a buyer and seller of securities, under some circumstances, may deal at arm’s length on equal terms, it is clear that the Securities Act was drafted with an eye to the disadvantages under which buyers labor. Issuers of and dealers in securities have better opportunities to investigate and appraise the prospective earnings and business plans affecting securities than buyers. It is therefore reasonable for Congress to put buyers of securities covered by that Act on a different basis from other purchasers.
When the security buyer, prior to any violation of the Securities Act, waives his right to sue in courts, he gives up more than would a participant in other business transactions. The security buyer has a wider choice of courts and venue. He thus surrenders one of the advantages the Act gives him and surrenders it at a time when he is less able to judge the weight of the handicap the Securities Act places upon his adversary.
Even though the provisions of the Securities Act, advantageous to the buyer, apply, their effectiveness in application is lessened in arbitration as compared to judicial proceedings. Determination of the quality of a commodity or the amount of money due under a contract is not the type of issue here involved. This case requires subjective findings on the purpose and knowledge of an alleged violator of the Act. They must be not only determined but applied by the arbitrators without judicial instruction on the law. As their award may be made without explanation of their reasons and without a complete record of their proceedings, the arbitrators’ conception of the legal meaning of such statutory requirements as “burden of proof,” “reasonable care” or “material fact,” see note 1, supra, cannot be examined. Power to vacate an award is limited. While it may be true, as the Court of Appeals thought, that a failure of the arbitrators to decide in accordance with the provisions of the Securities Act would “constitute grounds for vacating the award pursuant to section 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act,” that failure would need to be made clearly to appear. In unrestricted submissions, such as the present margin agreements envisage, the interpretations of the law by the arbitrators in contrast to manifest disregard are not subject, in the federal courts, to judicial review for error in interpretation. The United States Arbitration Act contains no provision for judicial determination of legal issues such as is found in the English law. As the protective provisions of the Securities Act require the exercise of judicial direction to fairly assure their effectiveness, it seems to us that Congress must have intended § 14, note 6, supra, to apply to waiver of judicial trial and review.
This accords with Boyd v. Grand Trunk Western R. Co., 338 U. S. 263. We there held invalid a stipulation restricting an employee’s choice of venue in an action under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. Section 6 of that Act permitted suit in any one of several localities and § 5 forbade a common carrier’s exempting itself from any liability under the Act. Section 5 had been adopted to avoid contracts waiving employers’ liability. It is to be noted that in words it forbade exemption only from “liability.” We said the right to select the “forum” even after the creation of a liability is a “substantial right” and that the agreement, restricting that choice, would thwart the express purpose of the statute. We need not and do not go so far in this present case. By the terms of the agreement to arbitrate, petitioner is restricted in his choice of forum prior to the existence of a controversy. While the Securities Act does not require petitioner to sue, a waiver in advance of a controversy stands upon a different footing.
Two policies, not easily reconcilable, are involved in this case. Congress has afforded participants in transactions subject to its legislative power an opportunity generally to secure prompt, economical and adequate solution of controversies through arbitration if the parties are willing to accept less certainty of legally correct adjustment. On the other hand, it has enacted the Securities Act to protect the rights of investors and has forbidden a waiver of any of those rights. Recognizing the advantages that prior agreements for arbitration may provide for the solution of commercial controversies, we decide that the intention of Congress concerning the sale of securities is better carried out by holding invalid such an agreement for arbitration of issues arising under the Act.
Reversed.
The Securities and Exchange Commission participated as amicus curiae throughout this case and has shared petitioner’s burden in presenting the case to the Court.
48 Stat. 74, 15 U. S. C. §77a et seq. § 12 (2), 48 Stat. 84, 15 U. S. C. §771 (2), provides: “Any person who— ....
“(2) sells a security (whether or not exempted by the provisions of section 77c of this title, other than paragraph (2) of subsection (a) of said section 77c), by the use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or of the mails, by means of a prospectus or oral communication, which includes an untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading (the purchaser not knowing of such untruth or omission), and who shall not sustain the burden of proof that he did not know, and in the exercise of reasonable care could not have known, of such untruth or omission, shall be liable to the person purchasing such security from him, who may sue either at law or in equity in any court of competent jurisdiction, to recover the consideration paid for such security with interest thereon, less the amount of any income received thereon, upon the tender of such security, or for damages if he no longer owns the security.”
See Wilko v. Swan, 201 F. 2d 439, 445.
9 U. S. C. (Supp. V, 1952) § 1 et seq. § 3 provides:
“If any suit or proceeding be brought in any of the courts of the United States upon any issue referable to arbitration under an agreement in writing for such arbitration, the court in which such suit is pending, upon being satisfied that the issue involved in such suit or proceeding is referable to arbitration under such an agreement, shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until such arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms of the agreement, providing the applicant for the stay is not in default in proceeding with such arbitration.”
Wilko v. Swan, 107 F. Supp. 75.
Wilko v. Swan, 201 F. 2d 439.
48 Stat. 84, 15 U. S. C. § 77n. § 14 provides:
“Any condition, stipulation, or provision binding any person acquiring any security to waive compliance with any provision of this subchapter or of the rules and regulations of the Commission shall be void.”
H. R. Rep. No. 85, 73d Cong., 1st Sess. 2.
S. Rep. No. 47, 73d Cong., 1st Sess. 1. See Oklahoma-Texas Trust v. S. E. C., 100 F. 2d 888, 891.
48 Stat. 74, Preamble; 48 Stat. 77, 15 U. S. C. § 77d. See Frost & Co. v. Coeur D’Alene Mines Corp., 312 U. S. 38, 40.
See note 1, supra. “Unless responsibility is to involve merely paper liability it is necessary to throw the burden of disproving responsibility for reprehensible acts of omission or commission on those who purport to -issue statements for the public’s reliance. ... To impose a lesser responsibility would nullify the purposes of this legislation.” H. R. Rep. No. 85, 73d Cong., 1st Sess. 9-10.
§ 22 (a), 48 Stat. 86, as amended 49 Stat. 1921, 15 U. S. C. § 77 v (a). See Deckert v. Independence Shares Corp., 311 U. S. 282, 289. Existing remedies at law and equity are retained. § 16, 48 Stat. 84, 15 U. S. C. § 77p.
H. R. Rep. No. 96, 68th Cong., 1st Sess. 1-2; S. Rep. No. 536, 68th Cong., 1st Sess. 3. See Marine Transit Corp. v. Dreyfus, 284 U. S. 263.
Agostini Bros. Bldg. Corp. v. United States, 142 F. 2d 854; Watkins v. Hudson Coal Co., 151 F. 2d 311; Donahue v. Susquehanna Collieries Co., 138 F. 2d 3; Donahue v. Susquehanna Collieries Co., 160 F. 2d 661; Evans v. Hudson Coal Co., 165 F. 2d 970.
Marine Transit Corp. v. Dreyfus, 284 U. S. 263; Kentucky River Mills v. Jackson, 206 F. 2d 111; Campbell v. American Fabrics Co., 168 F. 2d 959; Columbian Fuel Corp. v. United Fuel Gas Co., 72 F. Supp. 843, affirmed, 165 F. 2d 746; Matter of Springs Cotton Mills (Buster Boy Suit Co.), 275 App. Div. 196, 88 N. Y. S. 2d 295, affirmed, 300 N. Y. 586, 89 N. E. 2d 877; White Star Mining Co. v. Hultberg, 220 Ill. 578, 77 N. E. 327; Oregon-Washington R. & N. Co. v. Spokane, P. & S. R. Co., 83 Ore. 528, 163 P. 600; Sturges, Commercial Arbitrations and Awards, pp. 502, 793-798.
“Any controversy arising between us under this contract shall be determined by arbitration pursuant to the Arbitration Law of the State of New York, and under the rules of either the Arbitration Committee of the Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York, or of the American Arbitration Association, or of the Arbitration Committee of the New York Stock Exchange or such other Exchange as may have jurisdiction over the matter in dispute, as I may elect. Any arbitration hereunder shall be before at least three arbitrators.”
48 Stat. 86, as amended, 49 Stat. 1921, 15 U. S. C. § 77v (a). §22 (a) provides:
“The district courts of the United States . . . shall have jurisdiction . . . concurrent with State and Territorial courts, of all suits in equity and actions at law brought to enforce any liability or duty created by this subchapter. Any such suit or action may be brought in the district wherein the defendant is found or is an inhabitant or transacts business, or in the district where the sale took place, if the defendant participated therein, and process in such cases may be served in any other district of which the defendant is an inhabitant or wherever the defendant may be found. Judgments and decrees so rendered shall be subject to review as provided in sections [1292-93] and [1254] of Title 28. No case arising under this subchapter and brought in any State court of competent jurisdiction shall be removed to any court of the United States. . . See note 11, supra.
See Murray Oil Products Co. v. Mitsui & Co., 146 F. 2d 381, 383; American Locomotive Co. v. Chemical Research Corp., 171 F. 2d 115, 120.
“Paragraph 3 of the margin agreement provides that all transactions 'shall be subject to the provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and present and future acts amendatory thereto [15 U. S. C. A. § 78a et seq.].’ It contains no express mention of the Securities Act of 1933. If reference to the 1934 Act were construed as excluding the 1933 Act, it might be argued that the agreement did not provide for arbitration of a controversy as to the liability of Hayden, Stone & Co. under section 12 (2) of the 1933 Act. But we do not think the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius is here applicable. It may well be that the phrase 'present * * * acts * * * supplemental’ to the 1934 Act should be construed to include the 1933 Act. In any event the sale transaction would necessarily be subject to that Act. Therefore the amicus does not regard it as material whether or not the agreement purports to make that statute applicable. We agree, and shall proceed to a consideration of the question decided below, namely, whether the 1933 Act evidences a public policy which forbids referring the controversy to arbitration.” 201 F. 2d, at 443.
The paragraph of the agreement referred to by the Court of Appeals as “3” reads as follows:
“All transactions made by you or your agents for me are to be subject to the constitutions, rules, customs and practices of the exchanges or markets where executed and of their respective clearing houses and shall be subject to the provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and present and future acts amendatory thereof or supplemental thereto, and to the rules and regulations of the Federal Securities and Exchange Commission and of the Federal Reserve Board insofar as they may be applicable . . . .”
See Sturges, Commercial Arbitrations and Awards, p. 500.
Campe Corp. v. Pacific Mills, 87 N. Y. S. 2d 16, reversed, 275 App. Div. 634, 92 N. Y. S. 2d 347.
Evans v. Hudson Coal Co., 165 F. 2d 970; Donahue v. Susquehanna Collieries Co., 160 F. 2d 661; Watkins v. Hudson Coal Co., 151 F. 2d 311; Donahue v. Susquehanna Collieries Co., 138 F. 2d 3; Agostini Bros. Bldg. Corp. v. United States, 142 F. 2d 854; American Almond Prod. Co. v. Consolidated Pecan S. Co., 144 F. 2d 448.
9 U. S. C. (Supp. V, 1952) §10:
“In either of the following cases the United States court in and for the district wherein the award was made may make an order vacating the award upon the application of any party to the arbitration—
“ (a) Where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means.
“(b) Where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, or either of them.
“(c) Where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced.
“(d) Where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.
“(e) Where an award is vacated and the time within which the agreement required the award to be made has not expired the court may, in its discretion, direct a rehearing by the arbitrators.”
Wilko v. Swan, 201 F. 2d 439, 445.
Burchett v. Marsh, 17 How. 344, 349; United States v. Farragut, 22 Wall. 406, 413, 419-421 (note the right of review); Kleine v. Catara, 14 Fed. Cas. 732, No. 7,869; Texas & P. R. Co. v. St. Louis Southwestern R. Co., 158 F. 2d 251, 256; The Hartbridge, 62 F. 2d 72, 73. In Mutual Benefit Health & Acc. Assn. v. United Cas. Co., 142 F. 2d 390, 393, the problem was dealt with on the basis of the Massachusetts law. See Sturges, note 19, supra; Note, Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards on the Merits, 63 Harv. L. Rev. 681, 685, Award Based on Erroneous Rule; Cox, The Place of Law in Labor Arbitration, XXXIV Chicago Bar Rec. 205.
Arbitration Act, 1950, 14 Geo. VI, c. 27, § 21, 29 Halsbury’s Statutes of England (2d ed.) p. 106.
Cf. notes 66 Harv. L. Rev. 1326; 53 Col. L. Rev. 735; 41 Georgetown L. J. 565; 62 Yale L. J. 985.
See also, Krenger v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 174 F. 2d 556; Akerly v. New York Cent. R. Co., 168 F. 2d 812.
§ 5 of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 35 Stat. 66, 45 U. S. C. § 55, provides: “Any contract, rule, regulation, or device whatsoever, the purpose or intent of which shall be to enable any common carrier to exempt itself from any liability created by this chapter, shall to that extent be void . . . .”
See H. R. Rep. No. 1386, 60th Cong., 1st Sess. 6. Compare B. & O. S. R. Co. v. Voigt, 176 U. S. 498.
Cf. Callen v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 332 U. S. 625, 631.
Brooklyn Savings Bank v. O’Neil, 324 U. S. 697, 707, 714.
Cf. Wilko v. Swan, 201 F. 2d, at 444.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The primary issue in this case is whether a district court order denying a motion to stay or dismiss an action when a similar suit is pending in state court is immediately appealable.
I
Petitioner Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation and respondent Mayacamas Corporation entered into a contract under which respondent agreed to purchase an aircraft manufactured by petitioner. Respondent subsequently refused to make payments due, claiming that petitioner, by increasing the production and availability of its aircrafts, had frustrated respondent’s purpose in the transaction, which was to sell the aircraft when demand was high. Petitioner thereupon filed suit against respondent for breach of contract in the Superior Court of Chatham County, Georgia. Respondent, declining to remove this action to federal court, filed both an answer and a counterclaim. In addition, approximately one month after the commencement of petitioner’s state-court suit, respondent filed a diversity action against petitioner in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. This action alleged breach of the same contract that formed the basis of petitioner’s state-court suit.
Petitioner promptly moved for a stay or dismissal of the federal-court action pursuant to the doctrine of Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U. S. 800 (1976). In Colorado River, we held that in “exceptional” circumstances, a federal district court may stay or dismiss an action solely because of the pendency of similar litigation in state court. Id., at 818; see Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp., 460 U. S. 1, 13-19 (1983). Petitioner argued that the circumstances of this case supported a stay or dismissal of the federal-court action under Colorado River. The District Court disagreed. Finding that “the facts of this case fall short of those necessary to justify” the discontinuance of a federal-court proceeding under Colorado River, the District Court denied petitioner’s motion. See No. C 85-20658 RPA (ND Cal., Jan. 24, 1986).
Petitioner 'filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, alleging that the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction over the appeal under either 28 U. S. C. § 1291 or 28 U. S. C. § 1292(a)(1). Petitioner also requested the Court of Appeals, in the event it found that neither of these sections provided appellate jurisdiction, to treat the notice of appeal as an application for a writ of mandamus, brought pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1651, and to grant the application. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that neither § 1291 nor § 1292(a)(1) allowed an immediate appeal from the District Court’s order. 806 F. 2d 928, 929-930 (1987). The Court of Appeals then declined to treat petitioner’s notice of appeal as an application for mandamus on the ground that the District Court’s order would not cause “serious hardship or prejudice” to petitioner. Id., at 930. Finally, the Court of Appeals stated that even if the notice of appeal were to be treated as an application for mandamus, petitioner did not have a right to the writ because “[i]t was well within the district court’s discretion to deny” petitioner’s motion. Id., at 930-931.
We granted certiorari, 481 U. S. 1068 (1987), to resolve a division in the Circuits as to whether a district court’s denial of a motion to stay litigation pending the resolution of a similar proceeding in state court is immediately appealable. We now affirm.
II
Petitioner’s principal contention in this case is that the District Court’s order denying the motion to stay or dismiss the federal-court litigation is immediately appealable under § 1291. That section provides for appellate review of “final decisions” of the district courts. This Court long has stated that as a general rule a district court’s decision is appealable under this section only when the decision “ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” Catlin v. United States, 324 U. S. 229, 233 (1945). The order at issue in this case has no such effect: indeed, the order ensures that litigation will continue in the District Court. In Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541 (1949), however, we recognized a “small class” of decisions that are appealable under § 1291 even though they do not terminate the underlying litigation. Id., at 546. We stated in Cohen that a district court’s decision is appealable under § 1291 if it “finally determine[s] claims of right separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the action, too important to be denied review and too independent of the cause itself to require that appellate consideration be deferred until the whole case is adjudicated.” Ibid. Petitioner asserts that the District Court’s decision in this case falls within Cohen’s “collateral order” doctrine.
Since Cohen, we have had many occasions to revisit and refine the collateral-order exception to the final-judgment rule. We have articulated a three-pronged test to determine whether an order that does not finally resolve a litigation is nonetheless appealable under § 1291. See Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U. S. 463 (1978); see also, e. g., Richardson-Merrell Inc. v. Koller, 472 U. S. 424, 431 (1985); Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U. S. 368, 375 (1981). First, the order must “conclusively determine the disputed question.” Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U. S., at 468. Second, the order must “résolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action.” Ibid. Third and finally, the order must be “effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.” Ibid, (footnote omitted). If the order at issue fails to satisfy any one of these requirements, it is not appealable under the collateral-order exception to § 1291.
This Court held in Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp., 460 U. S. 1 (1983), that a district court order granting a stay of litigation pursuant to Colorado River meets each of the three requirements of the collateral-order doctrine and therefore is appealable under §1291. 460 U. S., at 11-13. In applying the collateral-order doctrine, we found that an order refusing to proceed with litigation because of the pendency of a similar action in state court satisfies the second and third prongs of the test. We stated that such an order “plainly presents an important issue separate from the merits” and that it would be “unreviewable if not appealed now” because once the state court has decided the issues in the litigation, the federal court must give that determination res judicata effect. Id., at 12 (footnote omitted). The Court gave more extended treatment to the first requirement of the collateral-order doctrine that the order “conclusively determine the disputed question.” We contrasted two kinds of nonfinal orders: those that are “ ‘inherently tentative,’” id., at 12, n. 14, quoting Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, supra, at 469, n. 11, and those that, although technically amendable, are “made with the expectation that they will be the final word on the subject addressed,” 460 U. S., at 12, n. 14. We used the order challenged in Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, supra, which denied certification of a class, as an example of the kind of order that is inherently tentative because a district court ordinarily would expect to reassess and revise such an order in response to events occurring “in the ordinary course of litigation.” Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp., supra, at 13, n. 14. We then stated that an order granting a stay of litigation in federal court pursuant to the doctrine of Colorado River was not of this tentative nature. An order granting a Colorado River stay, we noted, “necessarily contemplates that the federal court will have nothing further to do in resolving any substantive part of the case” because a district court may enter such an order only if it has full confidence that the parallel state proceeding will “be an adequate vehicle for the complete and prompt resolution of the issues between the parties.” 460 U. S., at 28; see id., at 13. Given that a district court normally would expect the order granting the stay to settle the matter for all time, the “conclusiveness” prong of the collateral-order doctrine is satisfied and the order is appealable under § 1291.
Application of the collateral-order test to an order denying a motion to stay or dismiss an action pursuant to Colorado River, however, leads to a different result. We need not decide whether the denial of such a motion satisfies the second and third prongs of the collateral-order test — the separability of the decision from the merits of the action and the review-ability of the decision on appeal from final judgment — because the order fails to meet the initial requirement of a conclusive determination of the disputed question. A district court that denies a Colorado River motion does not “necessarily contemplate” that the decision will close the matter for all time. In denying such a motion, the district court may well have determined only that it should await further developments before concluding that the balance of factors to be considered under Colorado River, see n. 1, supra, warrants a dismissal or stay. The district court, for example, may wish to see whether the state-court proceeding becomes more comprehensive than the federal-court action or whether the former begins to proceed at a more rapid pace. Thus, whereas the granting of a Colorado River motion necessarily implies an expectation that the state court will resolve the dispute, the denial of such a motion may indicate nothing more than that the district court is not completely confident of the propriety of a stay or dismissal at that time. Indeed, given both the nature' of the factors to be considered under Colorado River and the natural tendency of courts to attempt to eliminate matters that need not be decided from their dockets, a district court usually will expect to revisit and reassess an order denying a stay in light of events occurring in the normal course of litigation. Because an order denying a Colorado River motion is “inherently tentative” in this critical sense— because it is not “made with the expectation that [it] will be the final word on the subject addressed” — the order is not a conclusive determination within the meaning of the collateral-order doctrine and therefore is not appealable under § 1291.
III
Petitioner argues in the alternative that the District Court’s order in this case is immediately appealable under § 1292(a)(1), which gives the courts of appeals jurisdiction of appeals from interlocutory orders granting or denying injunctions. An order by a federal court that relates only to the conduct or progress of litigation before that court ordinarily is not considered an injunction and therefore is not appeal-able under § 1292(a)(1). See Switzerland Cheese Assn., Inc. v. E. Horne’s Market, Inc., 385 U. S. 23, 25 (1966); International Products Corp. v. Koons, 325 F. 2d 403, 406 (CA2 1963) (Friendly, J.). Under the Enelow-Ettelson doctrine, however, certain orders that stay or refuse to stay judicial proceedings are considered injunctions and therefore are immediately appealable. Petitioner asserts that the order in this case, which denied a motion for a stay of a federal-court action pending the resolution of a concurrent state-court proceeding, is appealable under § 1292(a)(1) pursuant to the Enelow-Ettelson doctrine.
The line of cases we must examine to resolve this claim began some 50 years ago, when this Court decided Enelow v. New York Life Ins. Co., 293 U. S. 379 (1935). At the time of that decision, law and equity remained separate jurisprudential systems in the federal courts. The same judges administered both these systems, however, so that a federal district judge was both a chancellor in equity and a judge at law. In Enelow, the plaintiff sued at law to recover on a life insurance policy. The insurance company raised the affirmative defense that the policy had been obtained by fraud and moved the District Court to stay the trial of the law action pending resolution of this equitable defense. The District Court granted this motion, and the plaintiff appealed. This Court likened the stay to an injunction issued by an equity court to restrain an action at law. The Court stated:
“[T]he grant or refusal of... a stay by a court of equity of proceedings at law is a grant or refusal of an injunction within the meaning of [the statute. ] And, in this aspect, it makes no difference that the two cases, the suit in equity for an injunction and the action at law in which proceedings are stayed, are both pending in the same court, in view of the established distinction between ‘proceedings at law and proceedings in equity in the national courts....’
“It is thus apparent that when an order or decree is made... requiring, or refusing to require, that an equitable defense shall first be tried, the court, exercising what is essentially an equitable jurisdiction, in effect grants or refuses an injunction restraining proceedings at law precisely as if the court had acted upon a bill of complaint in a separate suit for the same purpose.” Id., at 382-383.
The Court thus concluded that the District Court’s order was appealable under § 1292(a)(1).
In Ettelson v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 317 U. S. 188 (1942), the Court reaffirmed the rule of Enelow, notwithstanding that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure had fully merged law and equity in the interim. The relevant facts of Ettelson were identical to those of Enelow, and the Court responded to them in the same fashion. In response to the argument that the fusion of law and equity had destroyed the analogy between the stay ordered in the action and an injunction issued by a chancellor of a separate proceeding at law, the Court stated only that the plaintiffs were “in no differenposition than if a state equity court had restrained them from proceeding in the law action.” 317 U. S., at 192. Thus, the order granting the stay was held to be immediately appeal-able as an injunction.
The historical analysis underlying the results in Enelow and Ettelson has bred a doctrine of curious contours. Under the Enelow-Ettelson rule, most recently restated in Balti more Contractors, Inc. v. Bodinger, 348 U. S. 176 (1955), an order by a federal court staying or refusing to stay its own proceedings is appealable under § 1292(a)(1) as thé grant or denial of an injunction if two conditions are met. First, the action in which the order is entered must be an action that, before the merger of law and equity, was by its nature an action at law. Second, the order must arise from or be based on some matter that would then have been considered an equitable defense or counterclaim. If both conditions are satisfied, the historical equivalent of the modern order would have been an injunction, issued by a separate equity court, to restrain proceedings in an action at law. If either condition is not met, however, the historical analogy fails. When the underlying suit is historically equitable and the stay is based on a defense or counterclaim that is historically legal, the analogy fails because a law judge had no power to issue an injunction restraining equitable proceedings. And when both the underlying suit and the defense or counterclaim on which the stay is based are historically equitable, or when both are historically legal, the analogy fails because when a chancellor or a law judge stayed an action in his own court, he was not issuing an injunction, but merely arranging matters on his docket. Thus, unless a stay order is made in a historically legal action on the basis of a historically equitable defense or counterclaim, the order cannot be analogized to a premerger injunction and therefore cannot be appealed under § 1292(a)(1) pursuant to the Enelow-Ettelson doctrine.
The parties in this case dispute whether the Enelow-Ettelson rule makes the District Court’s decision to deny a stay immediately appealable under § 1292(a)(1). Both parties agree that an action for breach of contract was an action at law prior to the merger of law and equity. They vigorously contest, however, whether the stay of an action pending the resolution of similar proceedings in a state court is equitable in the requisite sense. Petitioner relies primarily on the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Microsoftware Computer Systems, Inc. v. Ontel Corp., 686 F. 2d 531 (1982). That court held that a stay issued under Colorado River is based on the policy of avoiding “the unnecessary and wasteful duplication of lawsuits,” which is historically an equitable defense. 686 F. 2d, at 536. Respondent, on the other hand, urges us to adopt the reasoning of the Ninth Circuit in this case. In its decision, the court below drew a distinction between motions that raised equitable “defenses” and motions that raised equitable “considerations.” 806 F. 2d, at 929-930. The court held that a motion for a stay pursuant to Colorado River was based only on equitable considerations and that the Enelow-Ettelson rule therefore did not apply.
We decline to address the issue of appealability in these terms; indeed, the sterility of the debate between the parties illustrates the need for a more fundamental consideration of the precedents in this area. This Court long has understood that the Enelow-Ettelson rule is deficient in utility and sense. In the two cases we have decided since Ettelson relating to the rule, we criticized its perpetuation of “outmoded procedural differentiations” and its consequent tendency to produce incongruous results. Baltimore Contractors, Inc. v. Bodinger, supra, at 184; see Morgantown v. Royal Ins. Co., 337 U. S. 254, 257-258 (1949). We refrained then from overruling the Enelow and Ettelson decisions, but today we take that step. A half century’s experience has persuaded us, as it has persuaded an impressive array of judges and commentators, that the rule is unsound in theory, unworkable and arbitrary in practice, and unnecessary to achieve any legitimate goals.
As an initial matter, the Enelow-Ettelson doctrine is, in the modern world of litigation, a total fiction. Even when the rule was announced, it was artificial. Although at that time law and equity remained two separate systems, they were administered by the same judges. When a single official was both chancellor and law judge, a stay of an action at law on equitable grounds required nothing more than an order issued by the official regulating the progress of the litigation before him, and the decision tó call this order an injunction just because it would have been an injunction in a system with separate law and equity judges had little justification. With the merger of law and equity, which was accomplished by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the practice of describing these stays as injunctions lost all connection with the reality of the federal courts’ procedural system. As Judge Charles Clark, the principal draftsman of the Rules, wrote:
“[W]e lack any rationale to explain the concept of a judge enjoining himself when he merely decides upon the method he will follow in trying the case. The metamorphosis of a law judge into a hostile chancellor on the other ‘side’ of the court could not have been overclear to the lay litigant under the divided procedure; but if now without even that fictitious sea change one judge in one form of action may split his judicial self at one instant into two mutually antagonistic parts, the litigant surely will think himself in Alice’s Wonderland.”' Beaunit Mills, Inc. v. Eday Fabric Sales Corp., 124 F. 2d 563, 565 (CA2 1942).
The Endow rule had presupposed two different systems of justice administered by separate tribunals, even if these tribunals were no more than two “sides” to the same court; with the abandonment of that separation, the premise of the rule disappeared. The doctrine, and the distinctions it drew between equitable and legal actions and defenses, lost all moorings to the actual practice of the federal courts.
The artificiality of the Enelow-Ettelson doctrine is not merely an intellectual infelicity; the gulf between the historical procedures underlying the rule and the modern procedures of federal courts renders the rule hopelessly unworkable in operation. The decisions in Enelow and Ettelson treated as straightforward the questions whether the underlying suit, on the one hand, and the motion for a stay, on the other, would properly have been brought in a court of equity or in a court of law. Experience since the merger of law and equity, however, has shown that both questions are frequently difficult and sometimes insoluble. Suits that involve diverse claims and request diverse forms of relief often are not easily categorized as equitable or legal. As one Court of Appeals complained in handling such a suit, “Enelow-Ettelson is virtually impossible to apply to a complaint... in which the averments and prayers are a purée of legal and equitable theories and of claims that had no antecedents in the old bifurcated system.” Danford v. Schwabacher, 488 F. 2d 454, 456 (CA9 1973). Actions for declaratory judgments are neither legal nor equitable, and courts have therefore had to look to the kind of action that would have been brought had Congress not provided the declaratory judgment remedy. Thus, the rule' has placed courts “in the unenviable position not only of solving modern procedural problems by the application of labels which have no currency, but also of considering the nature of law suits which were never brought.” Diematic Manufacturing Corp. v. Packaging Industries, Inc., 516 F. 2d 975, 978 (CA2), cert. denied, 423 U. S. 913 (1975). The task of characterizing stays as based in either law or equity has proved equally intractable. In an early case applying the doctrine, for example, this Court held that a stay of an action at law pending arbitration is appealable as an injunction because “the special defense setting up the arbitration agreement is an equitable defense.” Shanferoke Coal & Supply Corp. v. Westchester Service Corp., 293 U. S. 449, 452 (1935). But as one Court of Appeals has noted, a chancellor could not have enforced an arbitration agreement and, correlatively, could not have stayed a suit at law pending arbitration. See Olson v. Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc., 806 F. 2d 731, 735 (CA7 1986), citing, e. g., J. Story, Commentaries on Equity Pleadings § 804 (J. Gould 10th rev. ed. 1892). More recently, lower courts have differed as to whether a stay pending the completion of administrative proceedings is based on an equitable defense. Compare H. W. Caldwell & Son, Inc. v. United States ex rel. John H. Moon & Sons, Inc., 407 F. 2d 21, 22 (CA5 1969), with Pepper v. Miani, 734 F. 2d 1420, 1422 (CA10 1984). The conflict regarding the proper characterization of Colorado River stays is just one more example of the confusion that results from requiring courts to assign obsolete labels to orders that may or may not have an analogue in the bifurcated system of equity and law.
Most important, the Enelow-Ettelson doctrine is “divorced from any rational or coherent appeals policy.” Lee v. Ply*Gem Industries, Inc., 193 U. S. App. D. C. 112, 115, 593 F. 2d 1266, 1269 (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 441 U. S. 967 (1979). Under the rule, appellate jurisdiction of orders granting or denying stays depends upon a set of considerations that in no way reflects or relates to the need for interlocutory review. There is no reason to think that appeal of a stay order is more suitable in cases in which the underlying action is at law and the stay is based on equitable grounds- than in cases in which one of these conditions is not satisfied. The rule’s focus on historical distinctions thus produces arbitrary and anomalous results. See Baltimore Contractors, Inc. v. Bodinger, 348 U. S., at 184 (noting the “incongruity of taking jurisdiction from a stay in a law type [proceeding] and denying jurisdiction in an equity type proceeding”). Two orders may involve similar issues and produce similar consequences, and yet one will be appealable whereas the other will not.
For these reasons, the lower federal courts repeatedly have lambasted the Enelow-Ettelson doctrine. The rule has been called “a remnant from the jurisprudential attic,” Danford v. Schwabacher, supra, at 455, “an anachronism wrapped up in an atavism,” Hartford Financial Systems, Inc. v. Florida Software Services, Inc., 712 F. 2d 724, 727 (CA1 1983), and a “Byzantine peculiarit[y],” New England Power Co. v. Asiatic Petroleum Corp., 456 F. 2d 183, 189 (CA1 1972). With the exception of the Federal Circuit, which apparently has not yet confronted an Enelow-Ettelson appeal, every Circuit is on record with criticism of the doctrine. One Circuit Judge has urged his court to reject the doctrine outright. See Mar-Len of Louisiana, Inc. v. Parsons-Gilbane, 732 F. 2d 444, 445-447 (CA5 1984) (Rubin, J., dissenting). Although a majority of the panel declined to do so, it agreed that the Enelow-Ettelson rule was “‘artificial,’” “‘medieval,’” and “‘outmoded.’” 732 F. 2d., at 445, n. 1 (citations omitted). Another Circuit Judge, in a majority opinion, recently wrote an extensive and scholarly critique of the doctrine and concluded only with great reluctance that repudiating the doctrine would be improper. Olson v. Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc., supra, at 733-742 (Posner, J.).
Commentators have been no less scathing in their evaluations of the Enelow-Ettelson rule. Professor Moore and his collaborators have noted the difficulty of applying archaic labels to modern actions and defenses and expressed the wish that “the Supreme Court will accept the first opportunity offered to decide that the reason for the Enelow-Ettelson rule having ceased, the rule is no more.” 9 J. Moore, B. Ward, & J. Lucas, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 110.20[3], p. 245 (1987). Professor Wright and his collaborators have gone further, arguing that the extensive experience that the Courts of Appeals have had in attempting to rationalize and apply the rule would justify them in rejecting it. 16 C. Wright, A. Miller, E. Cooper, & E. Gressman, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3923, p. 65 (1977).
The case against perpetuation of this sterile and antiquated doctrine seems to us conclusive. We therefore overturn the cases establishing the Enelow-Ettelson rule and hold that orders granting or denying stays of “legal” proceedings on “equitable” grounds are not automatically appealable under § 1292(a)(1). This holding will not prevent interlocutory review of district court orders when such review is truly needed. Section 1292(a)(1) will, of course, continue to provide appellate jurisdiction over orders that grant or deny injunctions and orders that have the practical effect of granting or denying injunctions and have “‘serious, perhaps irreparable, consequence.’” Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U. S. 79, 84 (1981), quoting Baltimore Contractors, Inc. v. Bodinger, supra, at 181. As for orders that were appealable under § 1292(a)(1) solely by virtue of the Enelow-Ettelson doctrine, they may, in appropriate circumstances, be reviewed under the collateral-order doctrine of § 1291, see Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp., 460 U. S. 1 (1983), and the permissive appeal provision of § 1292(b), as well as by application for writ of mandamus. Our holding today merely prevents interlocutory review of district court orders on the basis of historical circumstances that have no relevance to modern litigation. Because we repudiate the Enelow-Ettelson doctrine, we reject petitioner’s claim that the District Court’s order in this ease is appealable under § 1292(a)(1) pursuant to that doctrine.
IV
Petitioner finally contends that if the order denying the motion for a stay or dismissal is not appealable, the Court of Appeals should have issued a writ of mandamus directing the District Court to vacate the order and grant the motion. In making this argument, petitioner points primarily to respondent’s decision to eschew removal of the state-court action in favor of bringing a separate suit in federal court. Petitioner asserts that in the absence of “imperative circumstances” not present in this case, a district court must respond to this kind of conduct by staying or dismissing the action brought in that court. Brief for Petitioner 28. Refusal to do so, petitioner concludes, is a “demonstrable abuse of discretion” warranting the issuance of a writ of mandamus. Id., at 5.
This Court repeatedly has observed that the writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, to be reserved for extraordinary situations. See, e. g., Kerr v. United States District Court, 426 U. S. 394, 402 (1976). The federal courts traditionally have used the writ only “to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so.” Roche v. Evaporated Milk Assn., 319 U. S. 21, 26 (1943). In accord’ with this historic practice, we have held that only “exceptional circumstances amounting to a judicial ‘usurpation of power’ ” will justify issuance of the writ. Will v. United States, 389 U. S. 90, 95 (1967), quoting De Beers Consol. Mines, Ltd. v. United States, 325 U. S. 212, 217 (1945). Moreover, we have held that the party seeking mandamus has the “burden of showing that its right to issuance of the writ is ‘clear and indisputable.’” Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland, 346 U. S. 379, 384 (1953), quoting United States v. Duell, 172 U. S. 576, 582 (1899).
Petitioner has failed to satisfy this stringent standard. This Court held in Colorado River that a federal court should stay or dismiss an action because of the pendency of a concurrent state-court proceeding only in “exceptional” circumstances, 424 U. S., at 818, and with “the clearest of justifications,” id., at 819. Petitioner has failed to show that the District Court clearly overstepped its authority in holding that the circumstances of this case were not so exceptional as to warrant a stay or dismissal under Colorado River. This Court never has intimated acceptance of petitioner’s view that the decision of a party to spurn removal and bring a separate suit in federal court invariably warrants the stay or dismissal of the suit under the Colorado River doctrine. More-, over, petitioner has pointed to no other circumstance in this case that would require a federal court to stay the litigation. Petitioner therefore has failed to show that the District Court’s order denying a stay or dismissal of the federal-court suit warranted the issuance of a writ of mandamus.
y
The District Court’s order denying petitioner’s motion to stay or dismiss respondent’s suit because of the pendency of similar litigation in state court was not immediately appeal-able under § 1291 or § 1292(a)(1). In addition, the District Court’s order did not call for the issuance of a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Justice Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The factors to be considered in determining whether any exceptional circumstances exist include the relative comprehensiveness, convenience, and progress of the state-court and federal-court actions. See, e. g., Arizona v. San Carlos Apache Tribe, 463 U. S. 545, 570 (1983).
Section 1291 provides, in pertinent part:
“The courts of appeals... shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States... except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court.”
Section 1292(a)(1) provides, in pertinent part:
“[T]he courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from:
“(1) Interlocutory orders of the district courts of the United States... or of the judges thereof, granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions, except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court.”
The All Writs Act provides, in pertinent part:
“The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.”
One judge dissented from the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. He stated that the District Court’s order was appealable under § 1292(a)(1). See 806 F. 2d, at 931 (Sneed, J.). He then noted that he would have affirmed the order. See ibid.
Compare 806 F. 2d 928 (CA9 1987) (case below) (holding that a district court’s denial of a motion to stay an action pending resolution of a state-court proceeding is not immediately appealable), with Microsoftware Computer Systems, Inc. v. Ontel Corp., 686 F. 2d 531 (CA7 1982) (holding that a district court’s denial of such a motion is immediately appealable under § 1292(a)(1)).
Justice Frankfurter, speaking for a unanimous Court, explained the rationale for this rule in Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U. S. 323, 325 (1940):
“Since the right to a judgment from more than one court is a matter of grace and not a necessary ingredient of justice, Congress from the very beginning has, by forbidding piecemeal disposition on appeal of what for practical purposes is a single controversy, set itself against enfeebling judicial administration. Thereby is avoided the obstruction to just claims that would come from permitting the harassment and cost of a succession of separate appeals from the various rulings to which a litigation may give rise, from its initiation to entry of judgment. To be effective, judicial administration must not be leaden-footed. Its momentum would be arrested by permitting separate reviews of the component elements in a unified cause.”
Accord, Gold v.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 1951 petitioner Tank Truck Rentals paid several hundred fines imposed on it and its drivers for violations of state maximum weight laws. This case involves the deductibility of those payments as “ordinary and necessary” business expenses under §23 (a)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939. Prior to 1950 the Commissioner had permitted such deductions, but a change of policy that year caused petitioner’s expenditures to be disallowed. The Tax Court, reasoning that allowance of the deduction would frustrate sharply defined state policy expressed in the maximum weight laws, upheld the Commissioner. 26 T. C. 427. The Court of Appeals affirmed on the same ground, 242 F. 2d 14, and we granted certiorari. 354 U. S. 920 (1957). In our view, the deductions properly were disallowed.
Petitioner, a Pennsylvania corporation, owns a fleet of tank trucks which it leases, with drivers, to motor carriers for transportation of bulk liquids. The lessees operate the trucks throughout Pennsylvania and the surrounding States of New Jersey, Ohio, Delaware, West Virginia, and Maryland, with nearly all the shipments originating or terminating in Pennsylvania. In 1951, the tax year in question, each of these States imposed maximum weight limits for motor vehicles operating on its highways. Pennsylvania restricted truckers to 45,000 pounds, however, while the other States through which petitioner operated allowed maximum weights approximating 60,000 pounds. It is uncontested that trucking operations were so hindered by this situation that neither petitioner nor other bulk liquid truckers could operate profitably and also observe the Pennsylvania law. Petitioner's equipment consisted largely of 4,500- to 5,000-gallon tanks, and the industry rate structure generally was predicated on fully loaded use of equipment of that capacity. Yet only one of the commonly carried liquids weighed little enough that a fully loaded truck could satisfy the Pennsylvania statute. Operation of partially loaded trucks, however, not only would have created safety hazards, but also would have been economically impossible for any carrier so long as the rest of the industry continued capacity loading. And the industry as a whole could not operate on a partial load basis without driving shippers to competing forms of transportation. The only other alternative, use of smaller tanks, also was commercially impracticable, not only because of initial replacement costs but even more so because of reduced revenue and increased operating expense, since the rates charged were based on the number of gallons transported per mile.
Confronted by this dilemma, the industry deliberately operated its trucks overweight in Pennsylvania in the hope, and at the calculated risk, of escaping the notice of the state and local police. This conduct also constituted willful violations in New Jersey, for reciprocity provisions of the New Jersey statute subjected trucks registered in Pennsylvania to Pennsylvania weight restrictions while traveling in New Jersey. In the remainder of the States in which petitioner operated, it suffered overweight fines for several unintentional violations, such as those caused by temperature changes in transit. During the tax year 1951, petitioner paid a total of $41,060.84 in fines and costs for 718 willful and 28 innocent violations. Deduction of that amount in petitioner’s 1951 tax return was disallowed by the Commissioner.
It is clear that the Congress intended the income tax laws “to tax earnings and profits less expenses and losses,” Higgins v. Smith, 308 U. S. 473, 477 (1940), carrying out a broad basic policy of taxing “net, not . . . gross, income . . . .” McDonald v. Commissioner, 323 U. S. 57, 66-67 (1944). Equally well established is the rule that deductibility under § 23 (a)(1) (A) is limited to expenses that are both ordinary and necessary to carrying on the taxpayer’s business. Deputy v. du Pont, 308 U. S. 488, 497 (1940). A finding of “necessity” cannot be made, however, if allowance of the deduction would frustrate sharply defined national or state policies proscribing particular types of conduct, evidenced by some governmental declaration thereof. Commissioner v. Heininger, 320 U. S. 467, 473 (1943); see Lilly v. Commissioner, 343 U. S. 90, 97 (1952). This rule was foreshadowed in Textile Mills Securities Corp. v. Commissioner, 314 U. S. 326 (1941), where the Court, finding no congressional intent to the contrary, upheld the validity of an income tax regulation reflecting an administrative distinction “between legitimate business expenses and those arising from that family of contracts to which the law has given no sanction.” 314 U. S., at 339. Significant reference was made in Heininger to the very situation now before us; the Court stated, “Where a taxpayer has violated a federal or a state statute and incurred a fine or penalty he has not been permitted a tax deduction for its payment.” 320 U. S., at 473.
Here we are concerned with the policy of several States “evidenced” by penal statutes enacted to protect their highways from damage and to insure the safety of all persons using them. Petitioner and its drivers have violated these laws and have been sentenced to pay the fines here claimed as income tax deductions. It is clear that assessment of the fines was punitive action and not a mere toll for use of the highways: the fines occurred only in the exceptional instance when the overweight run was detected by the police. Petitioner’s failure to comply with the state laws obviously was based on a balancing of the cost of compliance against the chance of detection. Such a course cannot be sanctioned, for judicial deference to state action requires, whenever possible, that a State not be thwarted in its policy. We will not presume that the Congress, in allowing deductions for income tax purposes, intended to encourage a business enterprise to violate the declared policy of a State. To allow the deduction sought here would but encourage continued violations of state law by increasing the odds in favor of noncompliance. This could only tend to destroy the effectiveness of the State’s maximum weight laws.
This is not to say that the rule as to frustration of sharply defined national or state policies is to be viewed or applied in any absolute sense. “It has never been thought . . . that the mere fact that an expenditure bears a remote relation to an illegal act makes it nondeductible.” Commissioner v. Heininger, supra, at 474. Although each case must turn on its own facts, Jerry Rossman Corp. v. Commissioner, 175 F. 2d 711, 713, the test of nondeductibility always is the severity and immediacy of the frustration .resulting from allowance of the deduction. The flexibility of such a standard is necessary if we are to accommodate both the congressional intent to tax only net income, and the presumption against congressional intent to encourage violation of declared public policy.
Certainly the frustration of state policy is most complete and direct when the expenditure for which deduction is sought is itself prohibited by statute. See Boyle, Flagg & Seaman, Inc., v. Commissioner, 25 T. C. 43. If the expenditure is not itself an illegal act, but rather the payment of a penalty imposed by the State because of such an act, as in the present case, the frustration attendant upon deduction would be only slightly less remote, and would clearly fall within the line of disallowance. Deduction of fines and penalties uniformly has been held to frustrate state policy in severe and direct fashion by reducing the “sting” of the penalty prescribed by the state legislature.
There is no merit to petitioner’s argument that the fines imposed here were not penalties at all, but merely a revenue toll. It is true that the Pennsylvania statute provides for purchase of a single-trip permit by an over-weighted trucker; that its provision for forcing removal of the excess weight at the discretion of the police authorities apparently was never enforced; and that the fines were devoted by statute to road repair within the municipality or township where the trucker was apprehended. Moreover, the Pennsylvania statute was amended in 1955, raising the maximum weight restriction to 60,000 pounds, making mandatory the removal of the excess, and graduating the amount of the fine by the number of pounds that the truck was overweight. These considerations, however, do not change the fact that the truckers were fined by the State as a penal measure when and if they were apprehended by the police.
Finally, petitioner contends that deduction of the fines at least for the innocent violations will not frustrate state policy. But since the maximum weight statutes make no distinction between innocent and willful violators, state policy is as much thwarted in the one instance as in the other. Petitioner’s reliance on Jerry Rossman Corp. v. Commissioner, supra, is misplaced. Deductions were allowed the taxpayer in that case for amounts inadvertently collected by him as OPA overcharges and then paid over to the Government, but the allowance was based on the fact that the Administrator, in applying the Act, had differentiated between willful and innocent violators. No such differentiation exists here, either in the application or the literal language of the state maximum weight laws.
Affirmed.
“SEC. 23. DEDUCTIONS FROM GROSS INCOME.
“In computing net income there shall be allowed as deductions: “(a) EXPENSES.—
“(1) Trade or business expenses.—
“ (A) In General. — All the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business . . . .” 53 Stat. 12, as amended, 56 Stat. 819.
Letter ruling by Commissioner Helvering, dated September 10, 1942 (IT:P:2-WTL), 5 CCH 1950 Fed. Tax Rep. ¶ 6134.
1951 — 1 Cum. Bull. 15.
Delaware, Del. Laws 1947, c. 86, §2; Maryland, Flack’s Md. Ann. Code, 1939 (1947 Cum. Supp.), Art. 66%, § 254, and Flack’s Md. Ann. Code, 1951, Art. 66%, §278; New Jersey, N. J. Rev. Stat., 1937, 39:3-84; Ohio, Page’s Ohio Gen. Code Ann., 1938 (Cum. Pocket Supp. 1952), § 7248-1; Pennsylvania, Purdon’s Pa. Stat. Ann., 1953, Tit. 75, § 453; West Virginia, W. Va. Code Ann., 1949, § 1546, and 1953 Cum. Supp., § 1721(463).
N. J. Rev. Stat., 1937 (Cum. Supp. 1948-1950), 39:3-84.3.
Because state policy in this case was evidenced by specific legislation, it is unnecessary to decide whether the requisite “governmental declaration” might exist other than in an Act of the Legislature. See Schwartz, Business Expenses Contrary To Public Policy, 8 Tax L. Rev. 241, 248.
Unlike the rest of the States, Pennsylvania imposed the fines on the driver rather than on the owner of the trucks. In each instance, however, the driver was petitioner’s employee, and petitioner paid the fines as a matter of course, being bound to do so by its collective bargaining agreement with the union representing the drivers.
See, e. g., United States v. Jaffray, 97 F. 2d 488, aff'd on other grounds, sub nom. United States v. Bertelsen & Petersen Engineering Co., 306 U. S. 276 (1939); Tunnel R. Co. v. Commissioner, 61 F. 2d 166; Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Commissioner, 47 F. 2d 990; Burroughs Bldg. Material Co. v. Commissioner, 47 F. 2d 178; Great Northern R. Co. v. Commissioner, 40 F. 2d 372; Davenshire, Inc., v. Commissioner, 12 T. C. 958.
Purdon’s Pa. Stat. Ann., 1953 (1957 Cum. Ann. Pocket Part), Tit, 75, § 453.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | L | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Thomas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Ordinarily, a party in a civil jury trial that believes the evidence is legally insufficient to support an adverse jury verdict will seek a judgment as a matter of law by filing a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) before submission of the case to the jury, and then (if the Rule 50(a) motion is not granted and the jury subsequently decides against that party) a motion pursuant to Rule 50(b). In this case, however, the respondent filed a Rule 50(a) motion before the verdict, but did not file a Rule 50(b) motion after the verdict. Nor did respondent request a new trial under Rule 59. The Court of Appeals nevertheless proceeded to review the sufficiency of the evidence and, upon a finding that the evidence was insufficient, remanded the case for a new trial. Because our cases addressing the requirements of Rule 50 compel a contrary result, we reverse.
I
The genesis of the underlying litigation in this case was ConAgra’s attempt to enforce its patent for “A Method for Browning Precooked Whole Muscle Meat Products,” U. S. Patent No. 5,952,027 (’027 patent). In early 2000, ConAgra issued a general warning to companies who sold equipment and processes for browning precooked meats explaining that it intended to “ ‘aggressively protect all of [its] rights under [the ’027] patent.’” 375 F. 3d 1341, 1344 (CA Fed. 2004). Petitioner Unitherm sold such processes, but did not receive ConAgra’s warning. ConAgra also contacted its direct competitors in the precooked meat business, announcing that it was “ ‘making the ’027 Patent and corresponding patents that may issue available for license at a royalty rate of 100 per pound.’” Id., at 1345. Jennie-O, a direct competitor, received ConAgra’s correspondence and undertook an investigation to determine its rights and responsibilities with regard to the ’027 patent. Jennie-0 determined that the browning process it had purchased from Unitherm was the same as the process described in the ’027 patent. Jennie-0 further determined that the ’027 patent was invalid because Unitherm’s president had invented the process described in that patent six years before ConAgra filed its patent application.
Consistent with these determinations, Jennie-0 and Uni-therm jointly sued ConAgra in the Western District of Oklahoma. As relevant here, Jennie-0 and Unitherm sought a declaration that the ’027 patent was invalid and unenforceable, and alleged that ConAgra had violated §2 of the Sherman Act, ch. 647,26 Stat. 209, as amended, 15 U. S. C. §2, by attempting to enforce a patent that was obtained by committing fraud on the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). See Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp., 382 U. S. 172, 174 (1965) (holding that “the enforcement of a patent procured by fraud on the Patent Office may be violative of §2 of the Sherman Act provided the other elements necessary to a §2 case are present”). The District Court construed the ’027 patent and determined that it was invalid based on Unitherm’s prior public use and sale of the process described therein. 35 U. S. C. § 102(b). After dismissing Jennie-0 for lack of antitrust standing, the District Court allowed Unitherm’s Walker Process claim to proceed to trial. Prior to the court’s submission , of the case to the jury, ConAgra moved for a directed verdict under Rule 50(a) based on legal insufficiency of the evidence. The District Court denied that motion. The jury returned a verdict for Unitherm, and ConAgra neither renewed its motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50(b), nor moved for a new trial on antitrust liability pursuant to Rule 59.
On appeal to the Federal Circuit, ConAgra maintained that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the jury’s Walker Process verdict. Although the Federal Circuit has concluded that a party’s “failure to present the district court with a post-verdict motion precludes appellate review of sufficiency of the evidence,” Biodex Corp. v. Loredan Biomedical, Inc., 946 F. 2d 850, 862 (1991), in the instant case it was bound to apply the law of the Tenth Circuit, 375 F. 3d, at 1365, n. 7 (“On most issues related to Rule 50 motions . . . we generally apply regional circuit law unless the precise issue being appealed pertains uniquely to patent law”). Under Tenth Circuit law, a party that has failed to file a postverdict motion challenging the sufficiency of the evidence may nonetheless raise such a claim on appeal, so long as that party filed a Rule 50(a) motion prior to submission of the case to the jury. Cummings v. General Motors Corp., 365 F. 3d 944, 950-951 (2004). Notably, the only available relief in such a circumstance is a new trial. Id., at 951.
Freed to examine the sufficiency of the evidence, the Federal Circuit concluded that, although Unitherm had presented sufficient evidence to support a determination that ConAgra had attempted to enforce a patent that it had obtained through fraud on the PTO, 375 F. 3d, at 1362, Uni-therm had failed to present evidence sufficient to support the remaining elements of its antitrust claim. Id., at 1365 (“Unitherm failed to present any economic evidence capable of sustaining its asserted relevant antitrust market, and little to support any other aspect of its Section 2 claim”). Accordingly, it vacated the jury’s judgment in favor of Uni-therm and remanded for a new trial. We granted certiorari, 543 U. S. 1186 (2005), and now reverse.
II
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 sets forth the procedural requirements for challenging the sufficiency of the evidence in a civil jury trial and establishes two stages for such challenges — prior to submission of the case to the jury, and after the verdict and entry of judgment. Rule 50(a) allows a party to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence prior to submission of the case to the jury, and authorizes the district court to grant such motions at the court’s discretion:
“(a) Judgment as a Matter op Law.
“(1) If during a trial by jury a party has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient evi-dentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue, the court may determine the issue against that party and may grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against that party with respect to a claim or defense that cannot under the controlling law be maintained or defeated without a favorable finding on that issue.
“(2) Motions for judgment as a matter of law may be made at any time before submission of the case to the jury. Such a motion shall specify the judgment sought and the law and the facts on which the moving party is entitled to the judgment.”
Rule 50(b), by contrast, sets forth the procedural requirements for renewing a sufficiency of the evidence challenge after the jury verdict and entry of judgment.
“(b) Renewing Motion for Judgment After Trial; Alternative Motion for New Trial. If, for any reason, the court does not grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law made at the close of all the evidence, the court is considered to have submitted the action to the jury subject to the court’s later deciding the legal questions raised by the motion. The movant may renew its request for judgment as a matter of law by filing a motion no later than 10 days after entry of judgment — and may alternatively request a new trial or join a motion for a new trial under Rule 59. In ruling on a renewed motion, the court may:
“(1) if a verdict was returned:
“(A) allow the judgment to stand,
“(B) order a new trial, or
“(C) direct entry of judgment as a matter of law ....” .
This Court has addressed the implications of a party’s failure to file a postverdict motion under Rule 50(b) on several occasions and in a variety of procedural contexts. This Court has concluded that, “[i]n the absence of such a motion” an “appellate court [is] without power to direct the District Court to enter judgment contrary to the one it had permitted to stand.” Cone v. West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co., 330 U. S. 212, 218 (1947). This Court has similarly concluded that a party’s failure to file a Rule 50(b) motion deprives the appellate court of the power to order the entry of judgment in favor of that party where the district court directed the jury’s verdict, Globe Liquor Co. v. San Roman, 332 U. S. 571 (1948), and where the district court expressly reserved a party’s preverdict motion for a directed verdict and then denied that motion after the verdict was returned, Johnson v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 344 U. S. 48 (1952). A postverdiet motion is necessary because “[djetermination of whether a new trial should be granted or a judgment entered under Rule 50(b) calls for the judgment in the first instance of the judge who saw and heard the witnesses and has the feel of the case which no appellate printed transcript can impart.” Cone, supra, at 216. Moreover, the “requirement of a timely 'application for judgment after verdict is not an idle motion” because it “is ... an essential part of the rule, firmly grounded in principles of fairness.” Johnson, supra, at 53.
The foregoing authorities lead us to reverse the judgment below. Respondent correctly points out that these authorities address whether an appellate court may enter judgment in the absence of a postverdict motion, as opposed to whether an appellate court may order a new trial (as the Federal Circuit did here). But this distinction is immaterial. This Court’s observations about the necessity of a postverdict motion under Rule 50(b), and the benefits of the district court’s input at that stage, apply with equal force whether a party is seeking judgment as a matter of law or simply a new trial. In Cone, this Court concluded that, because Rule 50(b) permits the district court to exercise its discretion to choose between ordering a new trial and entering judgment, its “appraisal of the bona fides of the claims asserted by the litigants is of great value in reaching a conclusion as to whether anew trial should be granted.” ' 330 U. S., at 216 (emphasis added). Similarly, this Court has determined that a party may only pursue on appeal a particular avenue of relief available under Rule 50(b), namely, the entry of judgment or a new trial, when that party has complied with the Rule’s filing requirements by requesting that particular relief below. See Johnson, supra, at 54 (“Respondent made a motion to set aside the verdict and for new trial within the time required by Rule 50(b). It failed to comply with permission given by 50(b) to move for judgment n. o. v. after the verdict. In this situation respondent is entitled only to a new trial, not to a judgment in its favor”).
Despite the straightforward language employed in Cone, Globe Liquor, and Johnson, respondent maintains that those cases dictate affirmance here, because in each of those cases the litigants secured a new trial. But in each of those cases the appellants moved for a new trial postverdict in the District Court, and did not seek to establish their entitlement to a new trial solely on the basis of a denied Rule 50(a) motion. See Cone, swpra, at 213 (noting that respondent moved for a new trial); Globe Liquor, supra, at 572 (“The respondents ... moved for a new trial on the ground ... that there were many contested issues of fact”). Indeed, Johnson concluded that respondent was only entitled to a new trial by virtue of its motion for such “within the time required by Rule 50(b).” 344 U. S., at 54. Accordingly, these outcomes merely underscore our holding today — a party is not entitled to pursue a new trial on appeal unless that party makes an appropriate postverdict motion in the district court.
Our determination that respondent’s failure to comply with Rule 50(b) forecloses its challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is further validated by the purported basis of respondent’s appeal, namely, the District Court’s denial of respondent’s preverdict Rule 50(a) motion. As an initial matter, Cone, Globe Liquor, and Johnson unequivocally establish that the precise subject matter of a party’s Rule 50(a) motion — namely, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law — cannot be appealed unless that motion is renewed pursuant to Rule 50(b). Here, respondent does not seek to pursue on appeal the precise claim it raised in its Rule 50(a) motion before the District Court — namely, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Rather, it seeks a new trial based on the legal insufficiency of the evidence. But if, as in Cone, Globe Liquor, and Johnson, a litigant that has failed to file a Rule 50(b) motion is foreclosed from seeking the relief it sought in its Rule 50(a) motion — i. e., the entry of judgment — then surely respondent is foreclosed from seeking a new trial, relief it did not and could not. seek in its preverdict motion. In short, respondent never sought a new trial before the District Court, and thus forfeited its right to do so on appeal. Yakus v. United States, 321 U. S. 414, 444 (1944) (“No procedural principle is more familiar to this Court than that a . . . right may be forfeited ... by the failure to make timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine it”).
The text of Rule 50(b) confirms that respondent’s prever-dict Rule 50(a) motion did not present the District Court with the option of ordering a new trial. That text provides that a district court may only order a new trial on the basis of issues raised in a preverdict Rule 50(a) motion when “ruling on a renewed motion” under Rule 50(b). Accordingly, even if the District Court was inclined to grant a new trial on the basis of arguments raised in respondent’s preverdict motion, it was without the power to do so under Rule 50(b) absent a postverdict motion pursuant to that Rule. Consequently, the Court of Appeals was similarly powerless.
Similarly, the text and application of Rule 50(a) support our determination that respondent may not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal on the basis of the District Court’s denial of its Rule 50(a) motion. The Rule provides that “the court may determine” that “there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for [a] party on [a given] issue,” and “may grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against that party ....” (Emphasis added.) Thus, while a district court is permitted to enter judgment as a matter of law when it concludes that the evidence is legally insufficient, it is not required to do so. To the contrary, the district courts are, if anything, encouraged to submit the case to the jury, rather than granting such motions. As Wright and Miller explain:
“Even at the close of all the evidence it may be desirable to refrain from granting a motion for judgment as a matter of law despite the fact that it would be possible for the district court to do so. If judgment as a matter of law is granted and the appellate court holds that the evidence in fact was sufficient to go to the jury, an entire new trial must be had. If, on the other hand, the trial court submits the case to the jury, though it thinks the evidence insufficient, final determination of the case is expedited greatly. If the jury agrees with the court’s appraisal of. the evidence, and returns a verdict for the party who moved for judgment as a matter of law, the case is at an end. If the jury brings in a different verdict, the trial court can grant a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. Then if the appellate court holds that the trial court was in error in its appraisal of the evidence, it can reverse and order judgment on the verdict of the jury, without any need for a new trial. For this reason the appellate courts repeatedly have said that it usually is desirable to take a verdict, and then pass on the sufficiency of the evidence on a post-verdict motion.” 9A Federal Practice §2533, at 319 (footnote omitted).
Thus, the District Court’s denial of respondent’s preverdict motion cannot form the basis of respondent’s appeal, because the denial of that motion was not error. It was merely an exercise of the District Court's discretion, in accordance with the text of the Rule and the accepted practice of permitting the jury to make an initial judgment about the sufficiency of the evidence. The only error here was counsel’s failure to file a postverdict motion pursuant to Rule 50(b).
* H= *
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that since respondent •failed to renew its preverdict motion as specified in Rule 50(b), there was no basis for review of respondent’s sufficiency of the evidence challenge in the Court of Appeals. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
It is so ordered.
Petitioner contends that respondent’s Rule 50(a) motion pertained only to the fraud element of petitioner’s Walker Process claim, and that it did not encompass the remaining antitrust elements of that claim. Because we conclude that petitioner is entitled to prevail irrespective of the scope of respondent’s Rule 50(a) motion, we assume without deciding that that motion pertained to all aspects of petitioner’s §2 claim. But see Amendments to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 134 F R. D. 525, 687 (1991) (“A post-trial motion for judgment can be granted only on grounds advanced in the pre-verdict motion”).
While ConAgra did file a postverdict motion seeking a new trial on antitrust damages, that motion did not seek to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence establishing antitrust liability and thus has no bearing on the instant case.
Neither Neely v. Martin K. Eby Constr. Co., 386 U. S. 317 (1967), nor Weisgram v. Marley Co., 528 U. S. 440 (2000), undermine our judgment about the benefit of postverdict input from the district court. In those cases this Court determined that an appellate court may, in certain circumstances, direct the entry of judgment when it reverses the district court’s denial of a Rule 50(b) motion. But in such circumstances the district court will have had an opportunity to consider the propriety of entering judgment or ordering a new trial by virtue of the postverdict motion. Moreover, these cases reiterate the value of the district court’s input, cautioning the courts of appeals to be “‘constantly alert’ to ‘the trial judge’s first-hand knowledge of witnesses, testimony, and issues.’” Id., at 443 (quoting Neely, supra, at 325).
The dissent’s suggestion that 28 U. S. C. §2106 permits the courts of appeals to consider the sufficiency of the evidence underlying a civil jury verdict notwithstanding a party’s failure to comply with Rule 50 is foreclosed by authority of this Court. While the dissent observes that §2106 was enacted after Cone and Globe Liquor Co. v. San Roman, 332 U. S. 571 (1948), post, at 408 (opinion of Stevens, J.), it fails to note that it was enacted prior to Johnson. Johnson explicitly reaffirmed those earlier cases, concluding that “in the absence of a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict made in the trial court within ten days after reception of a verdict [Rule 50] forbids the trial judge or an appellate court to enter such a judgment.” 344 U. S., at 50. Moreover, in Neely, this Court observed that § 2106 is “broad enough to include the power to direct entry of judgment n. o. v. on appeal,” 386 U. S., at 322, but nonetheless reaffirmed that Cone, Globe Liquor, and Johnson “make it clear that an appellate court may not order judgment n. o. v. where the verdict loser has failed strictly to comply with the procedural requirements of Rule 50(b),” 386 U. S., at 325. Contrary to the dissent’s suggestion, Neely confirms that the broad grant of authority to the courts of appeals in § 2106 must be exercised consistent with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as interpreted by this Court.
The dissent’s approach is not only foreclosed by authority of this Court, it also may present Seventh Amendment concerns. The implication of the dissent’s interpretation of §2106 is that a court of appeals would be free to examine the sufficiency of the evidence regardless of whether the appellant had filed a Rule 50(a) motion in the district court and, in the event the appellant had filed a Rule 50(a) motion, regardless of whether the district court had ever ruled on that motion. The former is squarely foreclosed by Slocum v. New York Life Ins, Co., 228 U. S. 364 (1913), and the latter is inconsistent with this Court’s explanation of the requirements of the Seventh Amendment in Baltimore & Carolina Line, Inc. v. Redman, 295 U. S. 654, 658 (1935) (explaining that “under the pertinent rules of the common law the court of appeals could set aside the verdict for error of law, such as the trial court’s ruling respecting the sufficiency of the evidence, and direct a new trial, but could not itself determine the issues of fact and direct a judgment for the defendant, for this would cut off the plaintiff’s unwaived right to have the issues of fact determined by a jury” (emphasis added)). Indeed, Rule 50 was drafted with such concerns in mind. See 9A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure §2522, pp. 244-246 (2d ed. 1995) (hereinafter Federal Practice).
While the precise nature of the new trial motion at issue in Cone is difficult to ascertain from this Court’s description of that motion, the Court of Appeals opinion in that case confirms that the movant had properly objected to the admission of certain evidence, and then moved post-verdict “for a new trial [on the basis of the inadmissible evidence] and later renewed, this motion upon the basis of newly-discovered evidence.” West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co. v. Cone, 153 F. 2d 576, 580 (CA4 1946). This Court did not disturb the Court of Appeals’ holding that formed the basis of the movant's entitlement to a new trial, namely, “the Circuit Court of Appeals’ holding that there was prejudicial error in the admission of evidence.” 330 U. S., at 215.
Respondent claims that its failure to renew its Rule 50(a) motion was in reliance on the Tenth Circuit’s determination that it could order a new trial in the absence of a Rule 50(b) motion. But respondent cannot credibly maintain that it wanted the Court of Appeals to order a new trial as opposed, to entering judgment. And, as the Tenth Circuit has recognized, respondent could not obtain the entry of judgment unless it complied with Rule 50(b). Cummings v. General Motors Corp., 365 F. 3d 944, 951 (2004). Respondent therefore had every incentive to comply with that Rule’s requirements. Accordingly, we reject its contention that our application of Rule 50(b) to the instant case is impermissibly retroactive. See also Harper v. Virginia Dept. of Taxation, 509 U. S. 86, 97 (1993) (“[W]e can scarcely permit the substantive law to shift and spring according to the particular equities of individual parties’ claims of actual reliance on an old rule and of harm from a retroactive application of the new rule” (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)).
We reject respondent’s contention that it is entitled to a remand for reconsideration in light of Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F. 3d 1303 (CA Fed.2005). The Federal Circuit has already denied respondent’s petition for rehearing raising this issue.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether certain disclosure requirements of the Ohio Campaign Expense Reporting Law, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §3517.01 et seq. (1972 and Supp. 1981), can be constitutionally applied to the Socialist Workers Party, a minor political party which historically has been the object of harassment by government officials and private parties. The Ohio statute requires every political party to report the names and addresses of campaign contributors and recipients of campaign disbursements. In Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1 (1976), this Court held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from compelling disclosures by a minor political party that can show a “reasonable probability” that the compelled disclosures will subject those identified to “threats, harassment, or reprisals.” Id., at 74. Employing this test, a three-judge District Court for the Southern District of Ohio held that the Ohio statute is unconstitutional as applied to the Socialist Workers Party. We affirm.
M
The Socialist Workers Party (SWP) is a small political party with approximately 60 members in the State of Ohio. The Party states in its constitution that its aim is “the abolition of capitalism and the establishment of a workers’ government to achieve socialism.” As the District Court found, the SWP does not advocate the use of violence. It seeks instead to achieve social change through the political process, and its members regularly run for public office. The SWP’s candidates have had little success at the polls. In 1980, for example, the Ohio SWP’s candidate for the United States Senate received fewer than 77,000 votes, less than 1.9% of the total vote. Campaign contributions and expenditures in Ohio have averaged about $15,000 annually since 1974.
In 1974 appellees instituted a class action in the District Court for the Northern District of Ohio challenging the constitutionality of the disclosure provisions of the Ohio Campaign Expense Reporting Law. The Ohio statute requires every candidate for political office to file a statement identifying each contributor and each recipient of a disbursement of campaign funds. §3517.10. The “object or purpose” of each disbursement must also be disclosed. The lists of names and addresses of contributors and recipients are open to public inspection for at least six years. Violations of the disclosure requirements are punishable by fines of up to $1,000 for each day of violation. §3517.99.
On November 6, 1974, the District Court for the Northern District of Ohio entered a temporary restraining order barring the enforcement of the disclosure requirements against the class pending a determination of the merits. The case was then transferred to the District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, which entered an identical temporary restraining order in February 1975. Accordingly, since 1974 appellees have not disclosed the names of contributors and recipients but have otherwise complied with the statute. A three-judge District Court was convened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §2281. Following extensive discovery, the trial was held in February 1981. After reviewing the “substantial evidence of both governmental and private hostility toward and harassment of SWP members and supporters,” the three-judge court concluded that under Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1 (1976), the Ohio disclosure requirements are unconstitutional as applied to appellees. We noted probable jurisdiction. 454 U. S. 1122 (1981).
r-H HH
The Constitution protects against the compelled disclosure of political associations and beliefs. Such disclosures “can seriously infringe on privacy of association and belief guaranteed by the First Amendment.” Buckley v. Valeo, supra, at 64, citing Gibson v. Florida Legislative Comm., 372 U. S. 539 (1963); NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415 (1963); Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U. S. 479 (1960); Bates v. Little Rock, 361 U. S. 516 (1960); NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U. S. 449 (1958). “Inviolability of privacy in group association may in many circumstances be indispensable to preservation of freedom of association, particularly where a group espouses dissident beliefs.” NAACP v. Alabama, supra, at 462. The right to privacy in one’s political associations and beliefs will yield only to a “‘subordinating interest of the State [that is] compelling,’” NAACP v. Alabama, supra, at 463 (quoting Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U. S. 234, 265 (1957) (opinion concurring in result)), and then only if there is a “substantial relation between the information sought and [an] overriding and compelling state interest.” Gibson v. Florida Legislative Comm., supra, at 546.
In Buckley v. Valeo this Court upheld against a First Amendment challenge the reporting and disclosure requirements imposed on political parties by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. 2 U. S. C. §431 et seq. 424 U. S., at 60-74. The Court found three government interests sufficient in general to justify requiring disclosure of information concerning campaign contributions and expenditures: enhancement of voters’ knowledge about a candidate’s possible allegiances and interests, deterrence of corruption, and the enforcement of contribution limitations. The Court stressed, however, that in certain circumstances the balance of interests requires exempting minor political parties from compelled disclosures. The government’s interests in compelling disclosures are “diminished” in the case of minor parties. Id., at 70. Minor party candidates “usually represent definite and publicized viewpoints” well known to the public, and the improbability of their winning reduces the dangers of corruption and vote-buying. Ibid. At the same time, the potential for impairing First Amendment interests is substantially greater:
“We are not unmindful that the damage done by disclosure to the associational interests of the minor parties and their members and to supporters of independents could be significant. These movements are less likely to have a sound financial base and thus are more vulnerable to falloffs in contributions. In some instances fears of reprisal may deter contributions to the point where the movement cannot survive. The public interest also suffers if that result comes to pass, for there is a consequent reduction in the free circulation of ideas both within and without the political arena.” Id., at 71 (footnotes omitted).
We concluded that in some circumstances the diminished government interests furthered by compelling disclosures by minor parties does not justify the greater threat to First Amendment values.
Buckley v. Valeo set forth the following test for determining when the First Amendment requires exempting minor parties from compelled disclosures:
“The evidence offered need show only a reasonable probability that the compelled disclosure of a party’s contributors’ names will subject them to threats, harassment, or reprisals from either Government officials or private parties.” Id., at 74.
The Court acknowledged that “unduly strict requirements of proof could impose a heavy burden” on minor parties. Ibid. Accordingly, the Court emphasized that “[m]inor parties must be allowed sufficient flexibility in the proof of injury.” Ibid.
“The proof may include, for example, specific evidence of past or present harassment of members due to their associational ties, or of harassment directed against the organization itself. A pattern of threats or specific manifestations of public hostility may be sufficient. New parties that have no history upon which to draw may be able to offer evidence of reprisals and threats directed against individuals or organizations holding similar views.” Ibid.
Appellants concede that the Buckley test for exempting minor parties governs the disclosure of the names of contributors, but they contend that the test has no application to the compelled disclosure of names of recipients of campaign disbursements. Appellants assert that the State has a substantial interest in preventing the misuse of campaign funds. They also argue that the disclosure of the names of recipients of campaign funds will have no significant impact on First Amendment rights, because, unlike a contribution, the mere receipt of money for commercial services does not affirmatively express political support.
We reject appellants’ unduly narrow view of the minor-party exemption recognized in Buckley. Appellants’ attempt to limit the exemption to laws requiring disclosure of contributors is inconsistent with the rationale for the exemption stated in Buckley. The Court concluded that the government interests supporting disclosure are weaker in the case of minor parties, while the threat to First Amendment values is greater. Both of these considerations apply not only to the disclosure of campaign contributors but also to the disclosure of recipients of campaign disbursements.
Although appellants contend that requiring disclosure of recipients of disbursements is necessary to prevent corruption, this Court recognized in Buckley that this concededly legitimate government interest has less force in the context of minor parties. The federal law considered in Buckley, like the Ohio law at issue here, required campaign committees to identify both campaign contributors and recipients of campaign disbursements. 2 U. S. C. §§ 432(c) and (d), and 434(a) and (b). We stated that “by exposing large contributions and expenditures to the light of publicity,” disclosure requirements “ten[d] to ‘prevent the corrupt use of money to affect elections.’” Id., at 67 (emphasis added), quoting Burroughs v. United States, 290 U. S. 534, 548 (1934). We concluded, however, that because minor party candidates are unlikely to win elections, the government’s general interest in “deterring the ‘buying’ of elections” is “reduced” in the case of minor parties. 424 U. S., at 70.
Moreover, appellants seriously understate the threat to First Amendment rights that would result from requiring minor parties to disclose the recipients of campaign disbursements. Expenditures by a political party often consist of reimbursements, advances, or wages paid to party members, campaign workers, and supporters, whose activities lie at the very core of the First Amendment. Disbursements may also go to persons who choose to express their support for an unpopular cause by providing services rendered scarce by public hostility and suspicion. Should their involvement be publicized, these persons would be as vulnerable to threats, harassment, and reprisals as are contributors whose connection with the party is solely financial. Even individuals who receive disbursements for “merely” commercial transactions may be deterred by the public enmity attending publicity, and those seeking to harass may disrupt commercial activities on the basis of expenditure information. Because an individual who enters into a transaction with a minor party purely for commercial reasons lacks any ideological commitment to the party, such an individual may well be deterred from providing services by even a small risk of harassment. Compelled disclosure of the names of such recipients of expenditures could therefore cripple a minor party’s ability to operate effectively and thereby reduce “the free circulation of ideas both within and without the political arena.” Buckley, 424 U. S., at 71 (footnotes omitted). See Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U. S., at 250-251 (plurality opinion) (“Any interference with the freedom of a party is simultaneously an interference with the freedom of its adherents”).
We hold, therefore, that the test announced in Buckley for safeguarding the First Amendment interests of minor parties and their members and supporters applies not only to the compelled disclosure of campaign contributors but also to the compelled disclosure of recipients of campaign disbursements.
Ill
The District Court properly applied the Buckley test to the facts of this case. The District Court found “substantial evidence of both governmental and private hostility toward and harassment of SWP members and supporters.” Appellees introduced proof of specific incidents of private and government hostility toward the SWP and its members within the four years preceding the trial. These incidents, many of which occurred in Ohio and neighboring States, included threatening phone calls and hate mail, the burning of SWP literature, the destruction of SWP members’ property, police harassment of a party candidate, and the firing of shots at an SWP office. There was also evidence that in the 12-month period before trial 22 SWP members, including 4 in Ohio, were fired because of their party membership. Although appellants contend that two of the Ohio firings were not politically motivated, the evidence amply supports the District Court’s conclusion that “private hostility and harassment toward SWP members make it difficult for them to maintain employment.”
The District Court also found a past history of Government harassment of the SWP. FBI surveillance of the SWP was “massive” and continued until at least 1976. The FBI also conducted a counterintelligence program against the SWP and the Young Socialist Alliance (YSA), the SWP’s youth organization. One of the aims of the “SWP Disruption Program” was the dissemination of information designed to impair the ability of the SWP and YSA to function. This program included “disclosing to the press the criminal records of SWP candidates, and sending anonymous letters to SWP members, supporters, spouses, and employers.” Until at least 1976, the FBI employed various covert techniques to obtain information about the SWP, including information concerning the sources of its funds and the nature of its expenditures. The District Court specifically found that the FBI had conducted surveillance of the Ohio SWP and had interfered with its activities within the State. Government surveillance was not limited to the FBI. The United States Civil Service Commission also gathered information on the SWP, the YSA, and their supporters, and the FBI routinely distributed its reports to Army, Navy and Air Force Intelligence, the United States Secret Service, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
The District Court properly concluded that the evidence of private and Government hostility toward the SWP and its members establishes a reasonable probability that disclosing the names of contributors and recipients will subject them to threats, harassment, and reprisals. There were numerous instances of recent harassment of the SWP both in Ohio and in other States. There was also considerable evidence of past Government harassment. Appellants challenge the relevance of this evidence of Government harassment in light of recent efforts to curb official misconduct. Notwithstanding these efforts, the evidence suggests that hostility toward the SWP is ingrained and likely to continue. All this evidence was properly relied on by the District Court. Buckley, 424 U. S., at 74.
IV
The First Amendment prohibits a State from compelling disclosures by a minor party that will subject those persons identified to the reasonable probability of threats, harassment, or reprisals. Such disclosures would infringe the First Amendment rights of the party and its members and supporters. In light of the substantial evidence of past and present hostility from private persons and Government officials against the SWP, Ohio’s campaign disclosure requirements cannot be constitutionally applied to the Ohio SWP.
The judgment of the three-judge District Court for the Southern District of Ohio is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
The plaintiff class as eventually certified includes all SWP candidates for political office in Ohio, their campaign committees and treasurers, and people who contribute to or receive disbursements from SWP campaign committees. The defendants are the Ohio Secretary of State and other state and local officials who administer the disclosure law.
Section 3517.10 provides in relevant part:
“(A) Every campaign committee, political committee, and political party which made or received a contribution or made an expenditure in connection with the nomination or election of any candidate at any election held in this state shall file, on a form prescribed under this section, a full, true, and itemized statement, made under penalty of election falsification, setting forth in detail the contributions and expenditures ....
“(B) Each statement required by division (A) of this section shall contain the following information:
“(4) A statement of contributions made or received, which shall include:
“(a) The month, day, and year of the contribution;
“(b) The full name and address of each person, including any chairman or treasurer thereof if other than an individual, from whom contributions are received. The requirement of filing the full address does not apply to any statement filed by a state or local committee of a political party, to a finance committee of such committee, or to a committee recognized by a state or local committee as its fund-raising auxiliary.
“(c) A description of the contribution received, if other than money;
“(d) The value in dollars and cents of the contribution;
“(e) All contributions and expenditures shall be itemized separately regardless of the amount except a receipt of a contribution from a person in the sum of twenty-five dollars or less at one social or fund-raising activity. An account of the total contributions from each such social or fund-raising activity shall be listed separately, together with the expenses incurred and paid in connection with such activity. No continuing association which makes a contribution from funds which are derived solely from regular dues paid by members of the association shall be required to list the name or address of any members who paid such dues.
“(5) A statement of expenditures which shall include:
“(a) The month, day, and year of expenditure;
“(b) The full name and address of each person to whom the expenditure was made, including any chairman or treasurer thereof if a committee, association, or group of persons;
“(c) The object or purpose for which the expenditure was made;
“(d) The amount of each expenditure.
“(C) . . .
“. . . All such statements shall be open to public inspection in the office where they are filed, and shall be carefully preserved for a period of at least six years.”
If the candidate is running for a statewide office, the statement shall be filed with the Ohio Secretary of State; otherwise, the statement shall be filed with the appropriate county board of elections. § 3517.11(A).
§ 3517.10(B)(5)(c).
The order restrained various state officials from “applying to or enforcing against plaintiffs ... the disclosure provisions of the Ohio Campaign Expense Reporting Law and the penalty provision of that law, the effect of which will be to postpone the beginning of any possible period of violation of that law by plaintiffs, . . . until such time as the case is decided by the three judge panel, which is hereby convened.” (Citations omitted.)
Apparently none of the parties throughout the 6-year period questioned whether the extended duration of the temporary restraining order conformed to the requirements of Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Because it invalidated the Ohio statute as applied to the Ohio SWP, the District Court did not decide appellees’ claim that the statute was facially invalid. The Ohio statute requires disclosure of contributions and expenditures no matter how small the amount. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3517.10(B)(4)(e) (Supp. 1981). Appellees contended that the absence of a monetary threshold rendered the statute facially invalid since the compelled disclosure of nominal contributions and expenditures lacks a substantial nexus with any claimed government interest. See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S., at 82-84.
The District Court’s opinion is unreported.
Title 2 U. S. C. §§432, 434, and 438 (1976 ed., Supp. V) require each political committee to keep detailed records of both contributions and expenditures, including the names of campaign contributors and recipients of campaign disbursements, and to file reports with the Federal Election Commission which are made available to the public.
The government interest in enforcing limitations is completely inapplicable in this case, since the Ohio law imposes no limitations on the amount of campaign contributions.
We believe that the question whether the Buckley test applies to the compelled disclosure of recipients of expenditures is properly before us. Throughout this litigation Ohio has maintained that it can constitutionally require the SWP to disclose the names of both campaign contributors and recipients of campaign expenditures. In invalidating both aspects of the Ohio statute as applied to the SWP, the District Court necessarily held (1) that the Buckley standard, which permits flexible proof of the reasonable probability of threats, harassment, or reprisals, applies to both contributions and expenditures, and (2) that the evidence was sufficient to show a reasonable probability that disclosure would subject both contributors and recipients to public hostility and harassment. In their jurisdictional statement, appellants appealed from the entire judgment entered below and presented the following question for review:
“Whether, under the standards set forth by this Court in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1 (1976), the provisions of Sections 3517.10 and 3517.11 of the Ohio Revised Code, which require that the campaign committee of a candidate for public office file a report disclosing the full names and addresses of persons making contributions to or receiving expenditures from such committee, are consistent with the right of privacy of association guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States when applied to the committees of candidates of a minority party which can establish only isolated instances of harassment directed toward the organization or its members within Ohio during recent years.” Juris. Statement i.
We think that the correctness of both holdings of the District Court is “fairly included” in the question presented in the jurisdictional statement. This Court’s Rule 15.1(a). See Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U. S. 555, 559, n. 6 (1978) (“[0]ur power to decide is not limited by the precise terms of the question presented”).
This is one of three government interests identified in Buckley. Appellants do not contend that the other two interests, enhancing voters’ ability to evaluate candidates and enforcing contribution limitations, support the disclosure of the names of recipients of campaign disbursements.
The partial dissent suggests that the government interest in the disclosure of recipients of expenditures is not significantly diminished in the case of minor political parties, since parties with little likelihood of electoral success might nevertheless finance improper campaign activities merely to gain recognition. Post, at 109-110. The partial dissent relies on Justice White’s separate opinion in Buckley, in which he pointed out that “unlimited money tempts people to spend it on whatever money can buy to influence an election.” 424 U. S., at 265 (emphasis in original).
An examination of the context in which Justice White made this observation indicates precisely why the state interest here is insubstantial. Justice White was addressing the constitutionality of ceilings on campaign expenditures applicable to all candidates. His point was that such ceilings “could play a substantial role in preventing unethical practices.” Ibid. In the case of minor parties, however, their limited financial resources serve as a built-in expenditure ceiling which minimizes the likelihood that they will expend substantial amounts of money to finance improper campaign activities. See id., at 71. For example, far from having “unlimited money,” the Ohio SWP has had an average of roughly $15,000 available each year to spend on its election efforts. Most of the limited resources of minor parties will typically be needed to pay for the ordinary fixed costs of conducting campaigns, such as filing fees, travel expenses, and the expenses incurred in publishing and distributing campaign literature and maintaining offices. Thus Justice White’s observation that “financing illegal activities is low on the campaign organization’s priority list,” id., at 265, is particularly apposite in the case of minor parties. We cannot agree, therefore, that minor parties are as likely as major parties to make significant expenditures in funding dirty tricks or other improper campaign activities. See post, at 110. Moreover, the expenditure by minor parties of even a substantial portion of their limited funds on illegal activities would be unlikely to have a substantial impact.
Furthermore, the mere possibility that minor parties will resort to corrupt or unfair tactics cannot justify the substantial infringement on First Amendment interests that would result from compelling the disclosure of recipients of expenditures. In Buckley, we acknowledged the possibility that supporters of a major party candidate might channel money into minor parties to divert votes from other major party contenders, 424 U. S., at 70, and that, as noted by the partial dissent, post, at 110, and n. 5, occasionally minor parties may affect the outcomes of elections. We thus recognized that the distorting influence of large contributors on elections may not be entirely absent in the context of minor parties. Nevertheless, because we concluded that the government interest in disclosing contributors is substantially reduced in the case of minor parties, we held that minor parties are entitled to an exemption from requirements that contributors be disclosed where they can show a reasonable probability of harassment. 424 U. S., at 70. Because we similarly conclude that the government interest in requiring the disclosure of recipients of expenditures is substantially reduced in the ease of minor parties, we hold that the minor-party exemption recognized in Buckley applies to compelled disclosure of expenditures as well.
For example, the expenditure statements filed by the SWP contain a substantial percentage of entries designated as per diem, travel expenses, room rental, and so on. The Ohio statute makes it particularly easy to identify these individuals since it requires disclosure of the purpose of the disbursements as well as the identity of the recipients. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §3517.10(B)(5)(c) (Supp. 1981).
“ ‘[Financial transactions can reveal much about a person’s activities, associations, and beliefs.’” Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S., at 66, quoting California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz, 416 U. S. 21, 78-79 (1974) (Powell, J., concurring). The District Court found that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) at least until 1976 routinely investigated the financial transactions of the SWP and kept track of the payees of SWP checks.
The fact that some or even many recipients of campaign expenditures may not be exposed to the risk of public hostility does not detract from the serious threat to the exercise of First Amendment rights of those who are so exposed. We cannot agree with the partial dissent’s assertion that disclosures of disbursements paid to campaign workers and supporters will not increase the probability that they will be subjected to harassment and hostility. Post, at 111-112. Apart from the fact that individuals may work for a candidate in a variety of ways without publicizing their involvement, the application of a disclosure requirement results in a dramatic increase in public exposure. Under Ohio law a person’s affiliation with the party will be recorded in a document that must be kept open to inspection by any one who wishes to examine it for a period of at least six years. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3517.10(C) (Supp. 1981). The preservation of unorthodox political affiliations in public records substantially increases the potential for harassment above and beyond the risk that an individual faces simply as a result of having worked for an unpopular party at one time.
See, e. g., Socialist Workers Party v. Attorney General, 458 F. Supp. 895, 904 (SDNY 1978) (FBI interference with SWP travel arrangements and speaker hall rental), vacated on other grounds, 596 F. 2d 58 (CA2), cert. denied, 444 U. S. 903 (1979).
Moreover, it would be hard to think of many instances in which the state interest in preventing vote-buying and improper campaign activities would be furthered by the disclosure of payments for routine commercial services.
The District Court was quoting from Part I of the Final Report of Special Master Judge Breitel in Socialist Workers Party v. Attorney General of the United States, 73 Civ. 3160 (TPG) (SDNY, Feb. 4, 1980), detailing the United States Government’s admissions concerning the existence and nature of the Government surveillance of the SWP.
The District Court also found the following:
“The Government possesses about 8,000,000 documents relating to the SWP, YSA . . . and their members. . . . Since 1960 the FBI has had about 300 informants who were members of the SWP and/or YSA and 1,000 nonmember informants. Both the Cleveland and Cincinnati FBI field offices had one or more SWP or YSA member informants. Approximately 21 of the SWP member informants held local branch offices. Three informants even ran for elective office as SWP candidates. The 18 informants whose files were disclosed to Judge Breitel received total payments of $358,648.38 for their services and expenses.” (Footnotes omitted.)
After reviewing the evidence and the applicable law, the District Court concluded: “[T]he totality of the circumstances establishes that, in Ohio, public disclosure that a person is a member of or has made a contribution to the SWP would create a reasonable probability that he or she would be subjected to threats, harassment or reprisals.” The District Court then enjoined the compelled disclosures of either contributors’ or recipients’ names. Although the District Court did not expressly refer in the quoted passage to disclosure of the names of recipients of campaign disbursements, it is evident from the opinion that the District Court was addressing both contributors and recipients.
Some of the recent episodes of threats, harassment, and reprisals against the SWP and its members occurred outside of Ohio. Anti-SWP occurrences in places such as Chicago (SWP office vandalized) and Pittsburgh (shot fired at SWP building) are certainly relevant to the determination of the public’s attitude toward the SWP in Ohio. In Buckley we stated that “[n]ew parties that have no history upon which to draw may . . . offer evidence of reprisals and threats directed against individuals or organizations holding similar views.” 424 U. S., at 74. Surely the Ohio SWP may offer evidence of the experiences of other chapters espousing the same political philosophy. See 1980 Illinois Socialist Workers Campaign v. State of Illinois Board of Elections, 531F. Supp. 915, 921 (ND Ill. 1981).
Appellants point to the lack of direct evidence linking the Ohio statute’s disclosure requirements to the harassment of campaign contributors or recipients of disbursements. In Buckley, however, we rejected such “unduly strict requirements of proof” in favor of “flexibility in the proof of injury.” 424 U. S., at 74. We thus rejected requiring a minor party to “come forward with witnesses who are too fearful to contribute but not too fearful to testify about their fear” or prove that “chill and harassment [are] directly attributable to the specific disclosure from which the exemption is sought.” Ibid. We think that these considerations are equally applicable to the proof required to establish a reasonable probability that recipients will be subjected to threats and harassment if their names are disclosed. While the partial dissent appears to agree, post, at 112-113, n. 7, its “separately focused inquiry,” post, at 112, and n. 7, in reality requires evidence of chill and harassment directly attributable to the expenditure-disclosure requirement.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Roberts
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Congress enacted 18 U. S. C. § 48 to criminalize the commercial creation, sale, or possession of certain depictions of animal cruelty. The statute does not address underlying acts harmful to animals, but only portrayals of such conduct. The question presented is whether the prohibition in the statute is consistent with the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment.
I
Section 48 establishes a criminal penalty of up to five years in prison for anyone who knowingly “creates, sells, or possesses a depiction of animal cruelty,” if done “for commercial gain” in interstate or foreign commerce. § 48(a). A depiction of “animal cruelty” is defined as one “in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed,” if that conduct violates federal or state law where “the creation, sale, or possession takes place.” § 48(e)(1). In what is referred to as the “exceptions clause,” the law exempts from prohibition any depiction “that has serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistie value.” §48(b).
The legislative background of § 48 focused primarily on the interstate market for “crush videos.” According to the House Committee Report on the bill, such videos feature the intentional torture and killing of helpless animals, including cats, dogs, monkeys, mice, and hamsters. H. R. Rep. No. 106-397, p. 2 (1999) (hereinafter H. R. Rep.). Crush videos often depict women slowly crushing animals to death “with their bare feet or while wearing high heeled shoes,” sometimes while “talking to the animals in a kind of dominatrix patter” over “[t]he cries and squeals of the animals, obviously in great pain.” Ibid. Apparently these depictions “appeal to persons with a very specific sexual fetish who find them sexually arousing or otherwise exciting.” Id., at 2-3. The acts depicted in crush videos are typically prohibited by the animal cruelty laws enacted by all 50 States and the District of Columbia. See Brief for United States 25, n. 7 (listing statutes). But crush videos rarely disclose the participants' identities, inhibiting prosecution of the underlying conduct. See H. R. Rep., at 3; accord, Brief for State of Florida et al. as Amici Curiae 11.
This case, however, involves an application of § 48 to depictions of animal fighting. Dogfighting, for example, is unlawful in all 50 States and the District of Columbia, see Brief for United States 26, n. 8 (listing statutes), and has been restricted by federal law since 1976. Animal Welfare Act Amendments of 1976, §17, 90 Stat. 421, 7 U.S.C. §2156. Respondent Robert J. Stevens ran a business, “Dogs of Velvet and Steel,” and an associated Web site, through which he sold videos of pit bulls engaging in dogfights and attacking other animals. Among these videos were Japan Pit Fights and Pick-A-Winna: A Pit Bull Documentary, which include contemporary footage of dogfights in Japan (where such conduct is allegedly legal) as well as footage of American dogfights from the 1960’s and 1970's. A third video, Catch Dogs and Country Living, depicts the use of pit bulls to hunt wild boar, as well as a “gruesome” scene of a pit bull attacking a domestic farm pig. 533 F. 3d 218, 221 (CA3 2008) (en banc). On the basis of these videos, Stevens was indicted on three counts of violating §48.
Stevens moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that § 48 is facially invalid under the First Amendment. The District Court denied the motion; It held that the depictions subject to §48, like obscenity or child pornography, are categorically unprotected by the First Amendment. 2:04-cr-00051-ANB (WD Pa., Nov. 10, 2004), App. to Pet. for Cert. 65a-71a. It went on to hold that §48 is not substantially overbroad, because the exceptions clause sufficiently narrows the statute to constitutional applications. Id., at 71a-75a. The jury convicted Stevens on all counts, and the District Court sentenced him to three concurrent sentences of 37 months’ imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release. App. 37.
The en banc Third Circuit, over a three-judge dissent, declared §48 facially unconstitutional and vacated Stevens’s conviction. 533 F. 3d 218. The Court of Appeals first held that §48 regulates speech that is protected by the First Amendment. The Court declined to recognize a new category of unprotected speech for depictions of animal cruelty, id., at 224, and n. 6, and rejected the Government’s analogy between animal cruelty depictions and child pornography, id., at 224-232.
The Court of Appeals then held that §48 could not survive strict scrutiny as a content-based regulation of protected speech. Id., at 232. It found that the statute lacked a compelling Government interest and was neither narrowly tailored to preventing animal cruelty nor the least restrictive means of doing so. Id., at 232-235. It therefore held §48 facially invalid.
In an extended footnote, the Third Circuit noted that §48 “might also be unconstitutionally overbroad,” because it “potentially covers a great deal of constitutionally protected speech” and “sweeps [too] widely” to be limited only by prosecutorial discretion. Id., at 235, n. 16. But the Court of Appeals declined to rest its analysis on this ground.
We granted certiorari. 556 U. S. 1181 (2009).
II
The Government’s primary submission is that §48 necessarily complies with the Constitution because the banned depictions of animal cruelty, as a class, are categorically unprotected by the First Amendment. We disagree.
The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech.” “[A]s a general matter, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U. S. 564, 573 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). Section 48 explicitly regulates expression based on content: The statute restricts “visual [and] auditory depietion[s],” such as photographs, videos, or sound recordings, depending on whether they depict conduct in which a living animal is intentionally harmed. As such, §48 is “‘presumptively invalid,’ and the Government bears the burden to rebut that presumption.” United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U. S. 803, 817 (2000) (quoting R. A. V. v. St. Paul, 505 U. S. 377, 382 (1992); citation omitted).
“From 1791 to the present,” however, the First Amendment has “permitted restrictions upon the content of speech in a few limited areas,” and has never “inelude[d] a freedom to disregard these traditional limitations.” Id., at 382-383. These “historic and traditional categories long familiar to the bar,” Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of N. Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U.S. 105, 127 (1991) (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment) — including obscenity, Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 483 (1957), defamation, Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U. S. 250, 254-255 (1952), fraud, Virginia Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U. S. 748, 771 (1976), incitement, Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U. S. 444, 447-449 (1969) (per curiam), and speech integral to criminal conduct, Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U. S. 490, 498 (1949) — are “well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem,” Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568, 571-572 (1942).
The Government argues that '‘depictions of animal cruelty” should be added to the list. It contends that depictions of “illegal acts of animal cruelty” that are “made, sold, or possessed for commercial gain” necessarily “lack expressive value,” and may accordingly “be regulated as unprotected speech.” Brief for United States 10 (emphasis added). The claim is not just that Congress may regulate depictions of animal cruelty subject to the First Amendment, but that these depictions are outside the reach of that Amendment altogether — that they fall into a “‘First Amendment Free Zone.’” Board of Airport Comm’rs of Los Angeles v. Jews for Jesus, Inc., 482 U. S. 569, 574 (1987).
As the Government notes, the prohibition of animal cruelty itself has a long history in American law, starting with the early settlement of the Colonies. Reply Brief 12, n. 8; see, e. g., The Body of Liberties § 92 (Mass. Bay Colony 1641), reprinted in American Historical Documents 1000-1904, 43 Harvard Classics 66, 79 (C. Eliot ed. 1910) (“No man shall exercise any Tirranny or Crueltie towards any bruite Creature which are usuallie kept for man’s use”). But we are unaware of any similar tradition excluding depictions of animal cruelty from “the freedom of speech” codified in the First Amendment, and the Government points us to none.
The Government contends that “historical evidence” about the reach of the First Amendment is not “a necessary prerequisite for regulation today,” Reply Brief 12, n. 8, and that categories of speech may be exempted from the First Amendment’s protection without any long-settled tradition of subjecting that speech to regulation. Instead, the Government points to Congress’s “ ‘legislative judgment that... depictions of animals being intentionally tortured and killed [are] of such minimal redeeming value as to render [them] unworthy of First Amendment protection/ ” Brief for United States 28 (quoting 538 F. 3d, at 243 (Cowen, J., dissenting)), and asks the Court to uphold the ban on the same basis. The Government thus proposes that a claim of categorical exclusion should be considered under a simple balancing test: “Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.” Brief for United States 8; see also id., at 12.
As a free-floating test for First Amendment coverage, that sentence is startling and dangerous. The First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits. The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs. Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it. The Constitution is not a document “prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 178 (1803).
To be fair to the Government, its view did not emerge from a vacuum. As the Government correctly notes, this Court has often described historically unprotected categories of speech as being “ ‘of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.’” R. A. V., supra, at 383 (quoting Chaplinsky, supra, at 572). In New York v. Ferber, 458 U. S. 747 (1982), we noted that within these categories of unprotected speech, “the evil to be restricted so overwhelmingly outweighs the expressive interests, if any, at stake, that no process of case-by-ease adjudication is required,” because “the balance of competing interests is clearly struck,” id., at 763-764. The Government derives its proposed test from these descriptions in our precedents. See Brief for United States 12-13.
But such descriptions are just that — descriptive. They do not set forth a test that may be applied as a general matter to permit the Government to imprison any speaker so long as his speech is deemed valueless or unnecessary or so long as an ad hoc calculus of costs and benefits tilts in a statute’s favor.
When we have identified categories of speech as fully outside the protection of the First Amendment, it has not been on the basis of a simple cost-benefit analysis. In Ferber, for example, we classified child pornography as such a category, 458 U. S., at 763. We noted that the State of New York had a compelling interest in protecting children from abuse, and that the value of using children in these works (as opposed to simulated conduct or adult actors) was de minimis. Id., at 756-757, 762. But our decision did not rest on this “balance of competing interests” alone. Id., at 764. We made clear that Ferber presented a special case: The market for child pornography was “intrinsically related” to the underlying abuse, and was therefore “an integral part of the production of such materials, an activity illegal throughout the Nation.” Id., at 759, 761. As we noted, “‘[i]t rarely has been suggested that the constitutional freedom for speech and press extends its immunity to speech or writing used as an integral part of conduct in violation of a valid criminal statute.’” Id., at 761-762 (quoting Giboney, 336 U. S., at 498). Ferber thus grounded its analysis in a previously recognized, long-established category of unprotected speech, and our subsequent decisions have shared this understanding. See Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U. S. 103, 110 (1990) (describing Ferber as finding “persuasive” the argument that the advertising and sale of child pornography was “an integral part” of its unlawful production (internal quotation marks omitted)); Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U. S. 234, 249-250 (2002) (noting that distribution and sale “were intrinsically related to the sexual abuse of children,” giving the speech at issue “a proximate link to the crime from which it came” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Our decisions in Ferber and other cases cannot be taken as establishing a freewheeling authority to declare new categories of speech outside the scope of the First Amendment. Maybe there are some categories of speech thát have been historically unprotected, but have not yet been specifically identified or discussed as such in our case law. But if so, there is no evidence that “depictions of animal cruelty” is among them. We need not foreclose the future recognition of such additional categories to reject the Government’s highly manipulable balancing test as a means of identifying them.
III
Because we decline to carve out from the First Amendment any novel exception for § 48, we review Stevens’s First Amendment challenge under our existing doctrine.
A
Stevens challenged § 48 on its face, arguing that any conviction secured under the statute would be unconstitutional. The court below decided the case on that basis, 533 F. 3d, at 231, n. 13, and we granted the Solicitor General’s petition for certiorari to determine “whether 18 U. S. C. 48 is facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment,” Pet. for Cert. I.
To succeed in a typical facial attack, Stevens would have to establish “that no set of circumstances exists under which [§ 48] would be valid,” United States v. Salerno, 481 U. S. 739, 745 (1987), or that the statute lacks any “plainly legitimate sweep,” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 740, n. 7 (1997) (Stevens, J., concurring in judgments) (internal quotation marks omitted). Which standard applies in a typical case is a matter of dispute that we need not and do not address, and neither Salerno nor Glucksberg is a speech case. Here the Government asserts that Stevens cannot prevail because §48 is plainly legitimate as applied to crush videos and animal fighting depictions. Deciding this case through a traditional facial analysis would require us to resolve whether these applications of § 48 are in fact consistent with the Constitution.
In the First Amendment context, however, this Court recognizes “a second type of facial challenge,” whereby a law may be invalidated as overbroad if “a substantial number of its applications are unconstitutional, judged in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep.” Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, 552 U. S. 442, 449, n. 6 (2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). Stevens argues that § 48 applies to common depictions of ordinary and lawful activities, and that these depictions constitute the vast majority of materials subject to the statute. Brief for Respondent 22-25. The Government makes no effort to defend such a broad ban as constitutional. Instead, the Government’s entire defense of §48 rests on interpreting the statute as narrowly limited to specific types of “extreme” material. Brief for United States 8. As the parties have presented the issue, therefore, the constitutionality of §48 hinges on how broadly it is construed. It is to that question that we now turn.
B
As we explained two Terms ago, “[t]he first step in over-breadth analysis is to construe the challenged statute; it is impossible to determine whether a statute reaches too far without first knowing what the statute covers.” United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. 285, 293 (2008). Because §48 is a federal statute, there is no need to defer to a state court’s authority to interpret its own law.
We read §48 to create a criminal prohibition of alarming breadth. To begin with, the text of the statute’s ban on a “ 'depiction of animal cruelty’ ” nowhere requires that the depicted conduct be cruel. That text applies to “any... depiction” in which “a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed.” § 48(c)(1). “[M]aimed, mutilated, [and] tortured” convey cruelty, but “wounded” or “killed” do not suggest any such limitation.
The Government contends that the terms in the definition should be read to require the additional element of “accompanying acts of cruelty. ” Reply Brief 6; see also Tr. of Oral Arg. 17-19. (The dissent hinges on the same assumption. See post, at 486-487,489.) The Government bases this argument on the definiendum, “depiction of animal cruelty,” c£ Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U. S. 1, 11 (2004), and on “ 'the eommonsense canon of noscitur a sociis.’ ” Reply Brief 7 (quoting Williams, 553 U. S., at 294). As that canon recognizes, an ambiguous term may be “given more precise content by the neighboring words with which it is associated.” Id., at 294. Likewise, an unclear definitional phrase may take meaning from the term to be defined, see Leocal, supra, at 11 (interpreting a ‘“substantial risk’” of the “us[e]” of “physical force” as part of the definition of “ ‘crime of violence’ ”).
But the phrase “wounded... or killed” at issue here contains little ambiguity. The Government’s opening brief properly applies the ordinary meaning of these words, stating for example that to “'kill’ is ‘to deprive of life.’” Brief for United States 14 (quoting Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1242 (1993)). We agree that “wounded” and “killed” should be read according to their ordinary meaning. Cf. Engine Mfrs. Assn. v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist., 541 U. S. 246, 252 (2004). Nothing about that meaning requires cruelty.
While not requiring cruelty, § 48 does require that the depicted conduct be “illegal.” But this requirement does not limit §48 along the lines the Government suggests. There are myriad federal and state laws concerning the proper treatment of animals, but many of them are not designed to guard against animal cruelty. Protections of endangered species, for example, restrict even the humane “wound[ing] or killing]” of “living animal[s].” § 48(c)(1). Livestock regulations are often designed to protect the health of human beings, and hunting and fishing rules (seasons, licensure, bag limits, weight requirements) can be designed to raise revenue, preserve animal populations, or prevent accidents. The text of § 48(c) draws no distinction based on the reason the intentional killing of an animal is made illegal, and includes, for example, the humane slaughter of a stolen cow.
What is more, the application of § 48 to depictions of illegal conduct extends to conduct that is illegal in only a single jurisdiction. Under subsection (c)(1), the depicted conduct need only be illegal in “the State in which the creation, sale, or possession takes place, regardless of whether the... wounding... or killing took place in [that] State.” A depiction of entirely lawful conduct runs afoul of the ban if that depiction later finds its way into another State where the same conduct is unlawful. This provision greatly expands the scope of §48, because although there may be “a broad societal consensus” against cruelty to animals, Brief for United States 2, there is substantial disagreement on what types of conduct are properly regarded as cruel. Both views about cruelty to animals and regulations having no connection to cruelty vary widely from place to place.
In the District of Columbia, for example, all hunting is unlawful. D. C. Code Munic. Regs., tit. 19, §1560 (June 2004). Other jurisdictions permit or encourage hunting, and there is an enormous national market for hunting-related depictions in which a living animal is intentionally killed. Hunting periodicals have circulations in the hundreds of thousands or millions, see Mediaweek, Sept. 29, 2008, p. 28, and hunting television programs, videos, and Web sites are equally popular, see Brief for Professional Outdoor Media Association et al. as Amici Curiae 9-10. The demand for hunting depictions exceeds the estimated demand for crush videos or animal fighting depictions by several orders of magnitude. Compare ibid, and Brief for National Rifle Association of America, Inc., as Amicus Curiae 12 (hereinafter NRA Brief) (estimating that hunting magazines alone account for $135 million in annual retail sales) with Brief for United States 43-44,46 (suggesting $1 million in crush video sales per year, and noting that Stevens earned $57,000 from his videos). Nonetheless, because the statute allows each jurisdiction to export its laws to the rest of the country, § 48(a) extends to any magazine or video depicting lawful hunting, so long as that depiction is sold within the Nation's Capital.
Those seeking to comply with the law thus face a bewildering maze of regulations from at least 56 separate jurisdictions. Some States permit hunting with crossbows, Ga. Code Ann. §27-3-4(1) (2007); Va. Code Ann. §29.1-519(A)(6) (Lexis 2008 Cum. Supp.), while others forbid it, Ore. Admin. Rule 635-065-0725 (2009), or restrict it only to the disabled, N. Y. Envir. Conserv. Lavs? Ann. §11-0901(16) (West 2005). Missouri allows the “canned” hunting of ungulates held in captivity, Mo. Code Regs. Ann., tit. 3, 10-9.560(1) (2009), but Montana restricts such hunting to certain bird species, Mont. Admin. Rule 12.6.1202(1) (2007). The sharp-tailed grouse may be hunted in Idaho, but not in Washington. Compare Idaho Admin. Code § 13.01.09.606 (2009) with Wash. Admin. Code §232-28-342 (2009).
The disagreements among the States — and the “commonwealthfs], territor[ies], or possession^] of the United States,” 18 U. S. C. § 48(c)(2) — extend well beyond hunting. State agricultural regulations permit different methods of livestock slaughter in different places or as applied to different animals. Compare, e.g., Fla. Stat. Ann. §828.23(5) (West 2006) (excluding poultry from humane slaughter requirements) with Cal. Food & Agrie. Code Ann. § 19501(b) (West 2001) (including some poultry). California has recently banned cutting or “docking” the tails of dairy cattle, which other States permit. 2009 Cal. Legis. Serv. Ch. 344 (S. B. 135) (West). Even cockfighting, long considered immoral in much of America, see Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U. S. 560, 575 (1991) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment), is legal in Puerto Rico, see 15 Laws P. R. Ann. §301 (Supp. 2008); Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Co. of P. R., 478 U. S. 328, 342 (1986), and was legal in Louisiana until 2008, see La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §14:102.23 (West) (effective Aug. 15, 2008). An otherwise-lawful image of any of these practices, if sold or possessed for commercial gain within a State that happens to forbid the practice, falls within the prohibition of § 48(a).
C
The only thing standing between defendants who sell such depictions and five years in federal prison — other than the mercy of a prosecutor — is the statute’s exceptions clause. Subsection (b) exempts from prohibition “any depiction that has serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value.” The Government argues that this clause substantially narrows the statute’s reach: News reports about animal cruelty have “journalistic” value; pictures of bullfights in Spain have “historical” value; and instructional hunting videos have “educational” value. Reply Brief 6. Thus, the Government argues, §48 reaches only crush videos, depictions of animal fighting (other than Spanish bullfighting, see Brief for United States 47-48), and perhaps other depictions of “extreme acts of animal cruelty.” Id., at 41.
The Government’s attempt to narrow the statutory ban, however, requires an unrealistically broad reading of the exceptions clause. As the Government reads the clause, any material with “redeeming societal value,” id., at 9, 16, 23, “ ‘at least some minimal value,’ ” Reply Brief 6 (quoting H. R. Rep., at 4), or anything more than “scant social value,” Reply Brief 11, is excluded under § 48(b). But the text says “serious” value, and “serious” should be taken seriously. We decline the Government’s invitation — advanced for the first time in this Court — to regard as “serious” anything that is not “scant.” (Or, as the dissent puts it, “ ‘trifling.’ ” Post, at 487.) As the Government recognized below, “serious” ordinarily means a good bit more. The District Court’s jury instructions required value that is “significant and of great import,” App. 132, and the Government defended these instructions as properly relying on “a commonly accepted meaning of the word ‘serious,’ ” Brief for United States in No. 05-2497 (CA3), p. 50.
Quite apart from the requirement of “serious” value in § 48(b), the excepted speech must also fall within one of the enumerated categories. Much speech does not. Most hunting videos, for example, are not obviously instructional in nature, except in the sense that all life is a lesson. According to Safari Club International and the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, many popular videos “have primarily entertainment value” and are designed to “entertai[n] the viewer, marke[t] hunting equipment, or increas[e] the hunting community.” Brief for Safari Club International et al. as Amici Curiae 12. The National Rifle Association agrees that “much of the content of hunting media... is merely recreational in nature.” NR A Brief 28. The Government offers no principled explanation why these depictions of hunting or depictions of Spanish bullfights would be inherently valuable while those of Japanese dogfights are not. The dissent contends that hunting depictions must have serious value because hunting has serious value, in a way that dogfights presumably do not. Post, at 487-488. But § 48(b) addresses the value of the depictions, not of the underlying activity. There is simply no adequate reading of the exceptions clause that results in the statute’s banning only the depictions the Government would like to ban.
The Government explains that the language of § 48(b) was largely drawn from our opinion in Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15 (1973), which excepted from its definition of obscenity any material with “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value,” id., at 24. See Reply Brief 8, 9, and n. 5. According to the Government, this incorporation of the Miller standard into § 48 is therefore surely enough to answer any First Amendment objection. Reply Brief 8-9.
In Miller we held that “serious” value shields depictions of sex from regulation as obscenity. 413 U. S., at 24-25. Limiting Miller's exception to “serious” value ensured that “ ‘[a] quotation from Voltaire in the flyleaf of a book [would] not constitutionally redeem an otherwise obscene publication.’ ” Id., at 25, n. 7 (quoting Kois v. Wisconsin, 408 U. S. 229, 231 (1972) (per curiam)). We did not, however, determine that serious value could be used as a general precondition to protecting other types of speech in the first place. Most of what we say to one another lacks “religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistie value” (let alone serious value), but it is still sheltered from Government regulation. Even “ ‘[w]holly neutral fútilities... come under the protection of free speech as fully as do Keats’ poems or Donne’s sermons.’” Cohen v. California, 403 U. S. 15, 25 (1971) (quoting Winters v. New York, 333 U. S. 507, 528 (1948) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting); alteration in original).
Thus, the protection of the First Amendment presumptively extends to many forms of speech that do not qualify for the serious-value exception of § 48(b), but nonetheless fall within the broad reach of § 48(c).
D
Not to worry, the Government says: The Executive Branch construes §48 to reach only “extreme” cruelty, Brief for United States 8, and it “neither has brought nor will bring a prosecution for anything less,” Reply Brief 6-7. The Government hits this theme hard, invoking its prosecutorial discretion several times; See id., at 6-7, 10, and n. 6, 19, 22. But the First Amendment protects against the Government; it does not leave us at the mercy of noblesse oblige. We would not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the Government promised to use it responsibly. Gf. Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc., 531 U. S. 457, 473 (2001).
This prosecution is itself evidence of the danger in putting faith in Government representations of prosecutorial restraint. When this legislation was enacted, the Executive Branch announced that it would interpret §48 as covering only depictions “of wanton cruelty to animals designed to appeal to a prurient interest in sex.” See Statement by President William J. Clinton upon Signing H. R. 1887, 34 Weekly Comp, of Pres. Doc. 2557 (1999). No one suggests that the videos in this case fit that description. The Government’s assurance that it will apply §48 far more restrietively than its language provides is pertinent only as an implicit acknowledgment of the potential constitutional problems with a more natural reading.
Nor can we rely upon the canon of construction that “ambiguous statutory language [should] be construed to avoid serious constitutional doubts.” FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U. S. 502, 516 (2009). “[T]his Court may impose a limiting construction on a statute only if it is ‘readily susceptible’ to such a construction.” Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 884 (1997). We “‘will not rewrite a... law to conform it to constitutional requirements,’” id., at 884-885 (quoting Virginia v. American Booksellers Assn., Inc., 484 U. S. 383, 397 (1988); omission in original), for doing so would constitute a “serious invasion of the legislative domain,” United States v. Treasury Employees, 513 U. S. 454, 479, n. 26 (1995), and sharply diminish Congress’s “incentive to draft a narrowly tailored law in the first place,” Osborne, 495 U. S., at 121. To read §48 as the Government desires requires rewriting, not just reinterpretation.
* * *
Our construction of §48 decides the constitutional question; the Government makes no effort to defend the constitutionality of §48 as applied beyond crush videos and depictions of animal fighting. It argues that those particular depictions are intrinsically related to criminal conduct or are analogous to obscenity (if not themselves obscene), and that the ban on such speech is narrowly tailored to reinforce restrictions on the underlying conduct, prevent additional crime arising from the depictions, or safeguard public mores. But the Government nowhere attempts to extend these arguments to depictions of any other activities — depictions that are presumptively protected by the First Amendment but that remain subject to the criminal sanctions of §48.
Nor does the Government seriously contest that the presumptively impermissible applications of §48 (properly construed) far outnumber any permissible ones. However “growing” and “lucrative” the markets for crush videos and dogfighting depictions might be, see Brief for United States 43, 46 (internal quotation marks omitted), they are dwarfed by the market for other depictions, such as hunting magazines and videos, that we have determined to be within the scope of §48, see supra, at 477. We therefore need not and do not decide whether a statute limited to crush videos or other depictions of extreme animal cruelty would be constitutional. We hold only that §
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the-Court.
Section 792 of California’s Agricultural Code, which gauges the maturity of avocados by oil content, prohibits the transportation or sale in California of avocados which contain “less than 8 per cent of oil, by weight... excluding the skin and seed.” In contrast, federal marketing orders approved by the Secretary of Agriculture gauge the maturity of avocados grown in Florida by standards which attribute no significance to oil content. This case presents the question of the constitutionality of the California statute insofar as it may be applied to exclude from California markets certain Florida avocados which, although certified to be mature under the federal regulations, do not uniformly meet the California requirement of 8% of oil.
Appellants in No. 45, growers and handlers of avocados in Florida, brought this action in the District Court for the Northern District of California to enjoin the enforcement of § 792 against Florida avocados certified as mature under the federal regulations. Appellants challenged the constitutionality of the-statute on three grounds : (1) that •under the Supremacy Clause, Art. VI, the California standard must be deemed displaced by the federal stand-' ard for determining the maturity of avocados grown in Florida; (2) that the application of the California statute to Florida-grown avocados denied appellants the Equal Protection of the Laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; (3) that its application unreasonably burdened or discriminated against interstate marketing o.f Florida-grown avocados in violation of the Commerce Clause, Art. I, § 8. A three-judge District Court initially dismissed the complaint. 169 F. Supp. 774. On direct appeal we held, Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc., v. Jacobsen, 362 U. S. 73, that the suit was one for a three-judge court under 28 U. S. C. § 2281, and presented a jus-ticiable controversy to be tried on the merits. After a trial the three-judge court denied an injunction against the enforcement of § 792, on the ground that the proofs did not establish that its’application to Florida-grown avocados violated any provision of the Federal Constitution. 197 F. Supp. 780. The District Court held for several reasons that the Supremacy Clause did not operate to displace § 792: no actual conflict existed between the statute and the federal marketing orders; neither the Agricultural Act nor the marketing orders occupied the field to the exclusion of the state statute; and Congress had • not ordained that a federal marketing order was to give a license to Florida producers to “market their avocados without further inspection by the states” after compliance with the federal maturity test. 197 F. Supp:, at 787. Rather, the court observed, “[t]he Federal law does not cover the whole field of interstate shipment of avocados” but by necessary implication leaves.the regulation of certain aspects of distribution to the States. Further, the District Court found no violation of the Equal Protection Clause because the California statute was applicable on identical terms to Florida and California producers, and was reasonably designed to enforce a traditional and legitimate interest of the State of'California in the protection of California consumers.’ The District Court concluded, finally, that § 792 did not unreasonably burden or discriminate against interstate commerce in out-of-state avocados — that the 8% oil content test served in practice only to keep off California grocers’ shelves fruit which was unpalatable because prematurely picked. This holding rested in part on the conclusion that mature Florida fruit had not been shown to be incapable of.attaining 8% oil content, since only a very small fraction of Florida avocados of certain varieties in fact failed to meet the California test.
Both parties have brought appeals here from the District Court’s judgment: the Florida growers urge in No. 45 that the court erred in not enjoining enforcement of the state statute against Florida-grown avocados; in No. 49 the California state officials appeal on the ground that the action should have been dismissed for want of equity jurisdiction rather than upon the merits. We noted probable jurisdiction' of both appeals. 368 U. S. '964, -965. We. affirm the judgment in the respect challenged by the cross-appeal in No. 49. In No. 45 we agree that appellants have not sustained their challenges to § 792 under the Supremacy and Equal Protection Clauses. However, we reverse and remand for a new trial insofar-as the judgment sustains § 792 against appellants’ challénge to the statute grounded on the Commerce Clause. We hold that the. effect of the statute upon interstate commerce cannot be determined on the record now before us.
The California statute was enacted in 1925. Like the federal marketing regulations applicable to appellants, this statute sought to ensure the maturity of avocados reaching retail markets. The District Court found on sufficient evidence that before 1925 the marketing of immature avocados had created serious problems in California. An avocado, if picked prematurely, will not ripen properly, but will tend to decay or shrivel and become rubbery and unpalatable after purchase. Not only retail consumers but even experienced grocers have difficulty in distinguishing mature avocados from the immature by physical characteristics alone. Thus, the District Court concluded, “[t]he marketing of... [immature] avocados cheats the consumer” and adversely affects demand for and orderly distribution of the fruit. 197 F. Supp., at 783.
The federal marketing regulations were adopted pursuant to the Agricultural Adjustment Act, 7 U. S. C. §§ 601 et seg. The declared purposes of the Act are to restore and maintain parity prices" for the benefit of producers of agricultural commodities, to ensure the stable' and steady flow of commodities to consumers, and “to establish and maintain such minimum standards of quality and maturity... as will effectuate such orderly marketing of such agricultural commodities as will be in the public interest,” § 2 (3), 7 U. S. C. § 602 (3). Whenever he finds that it would promote these declared policies, the Secretary is empowered upon notice and hearing to adopt federal marketing orders and regulations for a particular growing area, § 8c (3), (4),'7 U. S. C. § 608c (3), (4). Orders thus proposed by the Secretary become effective only when approved by a majority of the growers or producers concerned, § 8c (8), (9), 7 U. S. C. § 608c (8), (9).
In 1954, after proceedings in compliance with the statute, 19 Fed. Reg. 3439, the Secretary promulgated orders governing the marketing, of avocados grown in South Florida. The orders established an Avocado Administrative Committee, composed entirely of South Florida avocado growers and handlers. 7 CFR § 969.20. This Committee has authority to draft and recommend to the Secretary various marketing regulations governing the quality and maturity of South Florida avocados. The maturity test for the South Fbrida fruit is based upon a schedule of picking dates, sizes and weights annually drafted and recommended by the Committee and promul-gáted by the Secretary. The regulations forbid picking and shipping of any fruit before the prescribed date, although an exemption from the picking-date schedule may be granted by the Committee. The regulations drafted by the Committee and promulgated by the Secretary concern other qualities and physical characteristics of Florida avocados besides maturity. See 22 Fed. Reg. 6205, 7 CFR §§ 51.3050-51.3053, 51.3064. All regulated avocados, including those shipped under picking-date exemptions, must be inspected for compliance with certain quality standards by the Federal-State Inspection Service, a joint authority supervised by'the United States and Florida Departments of Agriculture.
Almost all avocados commercially grown in the United States come either from Southern California or South Florida. The California-grown varieties are chiefly of 'Mexican ancestry, and in most years contain at least 8% oil content when mature. The several Florida species, by contrast, are of West Indian and Guatemalan ancestry. West Indian avocados, which constitute some 12% of the total Florida production, may contain somewhat less than 8% oil when mature and ready for market. They do not, the District Court found, attain that percentage of oil “until they are‘past their-prime.” 197 F. Supp., at 783. But that variety neéd not concern us in this case, since the District Court concluded on sufficient evidence that “poor shipping qualities and short retail store shelf-life” make it commercially unprofitable, regardless of the oil test, to market the variety in California. On the other hand, the Florida hybrid and Guatemalan varieties, which do not encounter such handicaps, may reach maturity before, they attain 8% oil content. The District Court concluded, nevertheless, that § 792 did not unreasonably interfere with their marketability' since these'species “attain or exceed 8% oil content while in a prime commercial marketing condition,” so that the California test was “scientifically valid as applied to” these varieties.
The experts who testified at the trial disputed whether California’s percentage-of-oil test or the federal marketing orders’ test of picking dates and minimum sizes and weights was the more accurate gauge of the maturity of avocados. In adopting' his calendar test of maturity for the varieties grown in South Florida the Secretary expressly rejected physical and chemical tests as insufficiently reliable guides for gauging the maturity of the Florida fruit.
I.
We consider first appellants’ challenge to § 792 under the Supremacy Clause. That the California statute and the federal marketing orders embody different maturity tests is clear. However, this difference poses, rather than disposes of the problem before us. Whether a State may constitutionally reject commodities which a federal authority has certified to be marketable depends upon whether the state regulation “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress,” Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52, 67. By that test, we hold that § 792 is not such an obstacle; there is neither such actual conflict between the two schemes of regulation that both cannot stand in the same area, nor evidence of a congressional design, to preempt the field.
We begin by putting.aside two suggestions of the appellants which obscure more' than aid in the solution of the problem. First, it is suggested that a federal license or certificate of compliance with minimum federal standards immunizes the licensed commerce from inconsistent or more demanding. state regulations. While this suggestion draws some support from decisions, which have invalidated direct state interference with the activities of interstate carriers, Castle v. Hayes Freight Lines, Inc., 348 U. S. 61, even in that field of paramount federal concern the suggestion has been significantly qualified, e. g., Huron Portland Cement Co. v. Detroit, 362 U. S. 440, 447-448; Kelly v. Washington, 302 U. S. 1; cf. Bradley v. Public Utilities Comm’n, 289 U. S. 92. That no State may completely exclude federally licensed commerce is indisputable, but that principle has no application to this case.
Second, it is suggested that the coexistence of federal and state regulatory legislation should depend upon whether the purposes of the two laws are parallel or divergent. This Court has, on the one hand, sustained state statutes having objectives virtually identical to those of federal regulations, California v. Zook, 336 U. S. 725, 730-731; cf. De Veau v. Braisted, 363 U. S. 144, 156-157; Parker v. Brown, 317 U. S. 341; and has, on the other hand, struck down state statutes where the respective purposes were quite dissimilar, First Iowa Hydro-Electric Cooperative v. Federal Power Comm’n, 328 U. S. 152. The test of whether both federal and state regulations may operate, or the state regulation must give way, is whether both regulations c'an be enforced without impairing the federal superintendence of the field, not whether they are aimed at similar or different objectives.
The principle to be derived from our decisions is úhat federal regulation of á field of commerce should not be deemed preemptive of state regulatory power in the absence of persuasive reasons — either that the nature of the regulated subject matter permits no other conclusion, or, that the Congress has unmistakably so ordained. See, e. g., Huron Portland Cement Co. v. Detroit, supra.
A.
A holding of federal exclusion of state law is inescapable and requires no inquiry.into congressional design where compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility for one engaged in interstate commerce, cf. Union Bridge Co. v. United States, 204 U. S. 364, 399-401; Morgan v. Virginia, 328 U. S. 373; Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc., 359 U. S. 520. That would be the situation here if, for example, the federal orders forbade the picking and marketing of any avocado testing more than 7% oil, while the California test excluded from the State any avocado measuring less than 8% oil content. No such impossibility of dual compliance is presented on this record, however. As to those Florida avocados of the hybrid and Guatemalan varieties which were actually rejected by-the California test, the District Court indicated-that the Florida growers might have avoided such rejections by leaving the fruit on the trees beyond the earliest picking date permitted by the federal regulations, and nothing in the record contradicts that suggestion. -Nor is there a lack of evidentiary support for the District Court’s finding that the Florida varieties marketed in California “attain or exceed 8% oil content while in a prime, commercial marketing condition,” even though they may be “mature enough to be acceptable prior to the time that they reach that content....” 197 F. Supp., at 783. Thus the present record demonstrates no inevitable collision between the two schemes of regulation, despite the dissimilarity of the standards.
B.
The' issue under the head of the Supremacy Clause is narrowed then to this: Does either the nature of the subject -matter, namely the maturity of avocados, or any explicit declaration of congressional design to displace state regulation, require' § '792 to yield to the federal marketing orders? The maturity of avocados seems to be an inherently unlikely candidate for exclusive federal regulation. Certainly.it is not a subject by its very nature admitting only of national supervision, cf. Cooley v. Board of Port Wardens, 12 How. 299, 319-320. Nor is it a subject demanding exclusive federal regulation in order to achieve uniformity vital to national interests, cf. San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U. S. 236, 241-244.
On the contrary, the maturity of avocados is a subject matter of the kind this Court has traditionally regarded as properly within the scope of state superintendence. Specifically, the supervision of the readying of foodstuffs for market has always been deemed a matter of peculiarly local concern. Many decades ago, for example, this Court sustained a State’s prohibition against the imp'ortation of artificially colored oleomargarine (which posed no health problem), over claims of federal preemption and burden-on commerce. In the course of the opinion, the Court recognized that the States have always possessed a legitimate interest in “the protection of... [their] people against fraud and deception in the sale of food products” at retail markets within their borders. Plumley v. Massachusetts, 155 U. S. 461, 472. See also Crossman v. Lurman, 192 U. S. 189, 199-200; Hygrade Provision Co. v. Sherman, 266 U. S. 497; Savage v. Jones, 225 U. S. 501, 525-529.
It is true that more recently we sustained, a federal statute broadly regulating the production of renovated butter. But we were scrupulous in pointing out that a State might nevertheless — at least in the absence of an express contrary command of Congress — confiscate or exclude from market the processed butter which had complied with all the federal processing standards, “because of a higher standard demanded by a state for its consumers.” A state regulation so purposed was, we affirmed, “permissible under all the authorities.” Cloverleaf Butter Co. v. Patterson, 315 U. S. 148, 162. That distinction is a fundamental one, which illumines and delineates the problem of the present case. Federal regulation by means of minimum standards of the picking, processing, and transportation of agricultural commodities,, however comprehensive for those purposes that regulation may be, does not of itself import displacement, of state control over the distribution and retail sale of those commodities in the interests of the consumers of the commodities within the State. Thus, while Florida may perhaps not prevent the exportation of federally certified fruit by‘superimposing a higher maturity standard, nothing in Cloverleaf forbids California to regulate their marketing. Congressional regulation of one end of the stream of commerce does not, ipso facto, oust all state regulation at the other end. Such a displacement may not be inferred automatically from the fact that Congress has regulated production and packing of commodities for the interstate market. We do not mean to suggest that certain local regulations may not unreasonably or arbitrarily burden interstate commerce; we consider that question separately, infra, pp. 152-154. Here we are concerned only whether partial congressional superintendence of the field (maturity for the purpose of introduction of Florida fruit into the stream of interstate commerce) automatically forecloses regulation of maturity by another State in the interests of. that State’s' consumers of the fruit.
The.correctness of the District Court’s conclusion that § 792 was a regulation well within the scope of California’s police powers is thus clear. While it is conceded that the California statute is not a health measure, neither logic nor precedent invites ány distinction.between state regulations designed to keep unhealthful or unsafe commodities off the grocer’s shelves, and those designed to prevent the deception of consumers. See, e. g., Hygrade Provision Co. v. Sherman, supra; Plumley v. Massachusetts, supra. Nothing appearing in the record before us affords any ground for departure in this case from our consistent refusal to draw such a distinction.
c.
Since no irreconcilable conflict with the federal regulation requires a conclusion that § 792 was displaced, we turn to the question whether Congress has nevertheless ordained that the state regulation shall yield. The settled mandate governing this inquiry, in deference to the fact that a state regulation of this kind is an exercise of the “historic police powers of the States,” is not to decree such a federal displacement “unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress,” Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218, 230. In other words, we are not to conclude that Congress legislated the ouster of this California statute by the marketing orders in the absence of an unambiguous congressional mandate to that effect. We search in vain for such a mandate.
The provisions and objectives of the Agricultural Adjustment Act bear little resemblance to those in which only last Term we found a preemptive design in Campbell v. Hussey, 368 U. S. 297. In the Federal Tobacco Inspection Act involved in that case, Congress had declared “uniform standards of classification and inspection” to be “imperative for the protection of producers and others engaged in commerce and the public interest therein.” 7 U. S. C. §,511a. The legislative history was replete with references to a need for “uniform” or “official” standards, which could harmonize the grading and inspection of tobacco at all markets throughout the country. Under the. statute-a single set of standards was to be promulgated by.the Secretary of Agriculture, “and the standards so established would be the official standards of the United States for such purpose.” S. Rep. No. 1211, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. 1.
Nothing in the language of the Agricultural Adjustment ■ Act — passed by the same Congress the very next day— discloses a similarly comprehensive congressional design. There is but one provision of the statute which intimates any purpose to make agricultural production controls thé monitors of retail distribution — the reference to a policy of establishing such “minimum standards of quality and maturity and such grading and inspection requirements... as will effectuate... orderly marketing... in the public interest.” 7 U. S. C. § 602 (3). That language cannot be said, without more, to reveal a design'that federal marketing orders should displace all state regulations. By its very terms, in fact, the statute purports only to establish minimum standards.
Other provisions of the Act, and their history, militate even more strongly against federal displacement of these state regulations. • First, the adoption of marketing agreements and orders is authorized only when the Secretary has determined that economic conditions within a particular growing area require federally supervised cooperation among the growers to alleviate those conditions. 7 U. S. C. § 608c (1), (2). Moreover, the relief afforded the growers is to be temporary; “the Secretary is directed to cease exercising such powers” when “the circumstances described... no longer exist.” H. R. Rep. No. 1241, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. 4.. And consistently with' these terms, the Secretary himself has characterized the marketing agreements as essentially “self-help programs” instituted and administered by the farmers involved. This view has recently been elaborated by the Secretary:
“The Act itself does not impose regulations over the marketing of any agricultural commodity. It merely provides the authority under which an industry can develop regulations to fit its own situation and solve its own marketing problems.” United States Department of Agriculture, Marketing Agreements and Orders, AMS-230 (rev. ed. 1961), 3. See also United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Adjustment 1937-1938 (1939), 71.
Second, the very terms of the statute require that the Secretary promulgate marketing orders “limited in their application to the smallest regional production areas” which he finds practicable; and the orders are.to “prescribe such different terms, applicable to different production areas and' marketing areas” as will serve to “give due recognition to the. differences in production, and marketing” between those areas. 7 U. S. C. §,608c (11). While this language is not conclusive on the question before us, it indicates that Congress contemplated — quite by contrast to the design embodied in the Tobacco Inspection Act — that there might be widespread regional variations in the standards governing production and processing. Thus avocado growers in another region could, for example, propose — and the Secretary would presumably adopt — maturity regulations which would gauge the marketability of the fruit not by the calendar, as do the South Florida rules, but by the color of the skin, or the texture and color of the seed-coat, or perhaps even by oil content. Thus if the Congress of 1935 really intended that distribution would be comprehensively governed by grower-adopted quality and maturity standards, and all state regulation of the same subject would be ousted, it does not seeni likely that the statute would have invited local variations at the production end while saying absolutely nothing about the effect of those production controls upon distribution for consumption.
A third factor which strongly suggests that Congress did not mandate uniformity for each marketing, order arises from the legislative history. The provisions concerning the limited duration and local application of marketing agreements received much attention from both House and Senate Committees reporting on the bill. Though recognizing that the powers conferred upon the Secretary were novel and extensive, both Committees concluded : “These and other restrictive provisions are... adequately drawn to guard against any fear that the regulatory power is so broad as to subject its exercise to the risk of abuse.” H. R. Rep. No. 1241, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. 7; S. Rep. No. 1011, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. 3. The Committee Reports also discussed § 10 (i), 7 U. S. C. §610(i), which authorized federal-state cooperation in the administration of the program, and cautioned significantly: '
“Notwithstanding the authorization of cooperation contained in this section, there is nothing in it to permit or require the Federal Government to invade the field of the States, for the limitations of the act and the Constitution forbid federal regulation in that field, and this provision does not indicate the contrary. Nor is there, anything in the provision to force States to cooperate. Each sovereignty operates in its own sphere but can exert its authority in conformity rather than in conflict with that of the other.” H. R. Rep. No. 1241, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. 22-23; S. Rep. No. 1011, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. 15.
Thus the revealed congressional design was apparently to do no more than to invite farmers and growers to get together, under the auspices of the Department of Agriculture, to work out local harvesting, packing and processing programs and thereby relieve temporarily depressed marketing conditions. Had Congress meant the Act to have in addition a pervasive effect upon the ultimate distribution and sale of produce, evidence of such a design would presumably have accompanied the statute, as it did the Tobacco Inspection Act, see Campbell v. Hussey, supra. In the absence of any such manifestations, it would be unreasonable to infer that Congress delegated to the growers in a particular region the authority to deprive the States of their traditional power to enforce otherwise valid regulations designed for the protection of consumers.
An examination of the operation of these particular marketing orders reinforces the conclusion we reach from this analysis of the terms and objectives of the statute. The regulations show that the Florida avocado maturity standards are drafted each year not by impartial experts in Washington or even in Florida, but rather by the South Florida Avocado Administrative Committee, which consists entirely of representatives of the growers, and handlers concerned. It appears that the Secretary of Agriculture has invariably adopted the Committee’s recommendations for maturity dates, sizes, and weights. Thus the pattern which emerges is one of maturity regulations drafted and administered locally by the growers’ own representatives, and designed to do no more than promote orderly competition among the South Florida growers;
This case requires no consideration of the scope of the constitutional power of Congress to oust all state regulation of maturity, and we intimate no view upon that question. It is. enough to decide this aspect of the present case that wé conclude that Congress has not attempted to oust or displace state powers to enact the regulation embodied in § 792. The most plausible inference from the legislative scheme is that the Congress contemplated that state power to enact such regulations should - remain unimpaired.
II.
We turn now to appellants’ arguments under the Equal Protection and Commerce Clauses.
It is enough to dispose of the equal protection claim that we express our agreement with the District Court that the state standard does not work an “irrational discrimination as between persons or groups of persons,” Goesaert v. Cleary, 335 U. S. 464, 466; cf. Railway Express Agency, Inc., v. New York, 336 U. S. 106. While it may well be that arguably superior tests of maturity could be devised, we cannot say, in derogation of the findings of the 'District Court, that this possibility renders the choice made by California either arbitrary or devoid of rational relationship to a legitimate regulatory interest. Whether or not the oil content test is the most reliable indicator of marketability of avocados- is not a question for the courts to decide; it is sufficient that on this record we should.conclude, as we.do, that oil content appears to be an acceptable criterion of avocado maturity.
More difficult is the claim that the California statute unreasonably burdens or discriminates against interstate commerce because its application has excluded Florida avocados from the State. Although Florida and California were competitors in avocado production when the statute was passed in 1925, the present record permits no inference that the California statute had a discriminatory.objective. Nevertheless it may be that the continued application of this regulation to Florida avocados has imposed an unconstitutional burden on commerce, or has discriminated against another State’s exports of. the particular commodity. Other state regulations raising similar problems have been found to be discriminatory or burdensome notwithstánding a legitimate state interest in some form of regulation — either because they exceeded the limits necessary to vindicate that interest, Dean Milk Co. v. Madison, 340 U. S. 349, or because they unreasonably favored local producers at the expense of competitors from other States, Baldwin v. Seelig, Inc., 294 U. S. 511. Such a state regulation might also constitute án illegitimate attempt to control the conduct of producers beyond the borders of California, cf. Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc., supra; Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona, 325 U. S. 761, 775.
The District Court referred to these precedents but nevertheless concluded that the California oil content test-was not burdensome upon or discriminatory against interstate commerce. 197 F. Supp., at 786-787. However, we are unable to review that conclusion or decide whether the court properly applied the principles announced in these decisions because we cannot ascertain what constituted the record on which.the conclusion was predicated. Much of the appellants’ offered proof consisted of depositions and exhibits, designed to detail both the rejection of Florida avocados in California and the oil content of Florida avocados which had met the federal test but which might nonetheless have been excluded from California markets.
The parties’ own assumptions concerning the content of the record are in irreconcilable conflict: the appellants have argued the case on the apparent assumption, that the depositions and exhibits ivere admitted before the District Court; the appellees, on the' other hand, have assumed both in their briefs and in oral, argument that the disputed evidence was not admitted. This lack of consensus is altogether understandable in light of the confusion created by the District Court’s evidentiary rulings; The appellees objected to the introduction of the disputed materials on several grounds, both during and after the trial. The court expressly reserved its rulings on the issue.of admissibility, and after the entry of its order on the merits of the case made, a supplemental “ruling on évidentiary matters,” in which.it stated that the disputed exhibits and depositions “aré not admitted into evidence, but have been considered by the Court as an offer of proof by the plaintiffs....” The earlier memorandum of the court explained that it would “assume, arguendo, that the exhibits and depositions offered by plaintiffs are all admissible.” 197 F. Supp., at 782. If this was intended to mean that appellants would not have made out a case for relief, even were the evidence to be admitted, then there would have been no need to rule on admissibility. But we are unable to determine, just as the parties were unable to agree, whether the District Court viewed the evidence in'that posture.
Thus the only evidence which would seem to support an injunction on. the ground of burden on interstate commerce has never been formally admitted to the record in this case. For this Court to reverse and order an injunction on the basis of that evidence would be, in effect, to admit the contested depositions and exhibits on appeal without ever affording the appellees an opportunity to argue their seemingly substantial objections. To assume the admissibility of the evidence under these circumstances would be to deny the appellees their day in court as to. a disputed part of the case on which the trial court has never ruled because its view of the law evidently made such -a ruling unnecessary. Cf. Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc., 356 U. S. 525, 533; Fountain v. Filson, 336 U. S. 681; Globe Liquor Co. v. San Roman, 332 U. S. 571. On the other hand, to affirm the District Court would require us to make equally impermissible assumptions as to the state of the record. Cf. Florida v. United States, 282 U. S. 194, 215.
For these reasons we conclude that the judgment must, to the extent appealed from in No. 45, be reversed and the case remanded to the District Court for a new trial of appellants’ Commerce Clause contentions. We intimate no view with respect to either the admissibility or the probative value of the disputed evidence, or of any other evidence which might be brought forth by either party concerning this aspect of the case.
III.
In No. 49, the state officers cross-appeal on the ground that the District Court should have dismissed the action for want of equity, rather than for lack of merit. Their contention is that there was insufficient showing of injury to the Florida growers to invoke the District Court’s equity jurisdiction: We ■ reject that contention, and affirm the judgment insofar as it is challenged by the cross-appeal.
In Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc., v. Jacobsen, 362 U. S. 73, we held that because of the Florida growers’ allegations that California officials had consistently condemned Florida avocados as unfit for sale in California, “thus requiring appellants [the Florida growers] — to prevent destruction and complete loss of their shipments — to reship the avocados to and sell them in other States,” it was evident that “there is an existing dispute between the parties as to present legal rights amounting to a justiciable controversy which appellants are entitled to have determined on the merits.” 362 U. S., at 85-86. In viéw of our mandate in Jacobsen, therefore, the District Court necessarily assumed jurisdiction and heard the case on its merits. Cf. United States v. Haley, 371 U. S. 18.
Even on the present ambiguous record, we think that the Florida growers have demonstrated sufficient injury to warrant at least a trial of their allegations. In the California officials’ briefs below, it was conceded that the Florida growers had suffered damage in the amount of some $1,500 by reason of the enforcement of the statute. Before the bar of this Court, it was conceded that the State, in objecting to the growers’ proffered evidence, did not dispute the claim that some shipments of Florida avocados had in fact been rejected by California for failure to comply with the oil content requirement. Indeed, the State conceded in its pleadings before the trial court that rejections of Florida avocados had averaged in recent years as much as 6.4% of the total shipments of Florida fruit into California. While these concessions were not corroborated by statistical’proofs at trial, and thus do not form an adequate basis for the entry of a final injunction, they nevertheless supplied an adequate basis,'apart from the requirement of our remand, for the District Court’s proceeding to trial on the merits.
In addition, it is clear that the California officials will continue to enforce the statute against the Florida-grown avocados, for the State’s answer to the complaint declared that these officials “have in the past and now stand ready to perform their duties under their oath of office should they acquire knowledge of violations of the Agricultural Code of the State of California.” Thus the District Court, both on the pleadings before it, and in light of our opinion in Jacobsen, properly heard the remanded case on the merits and did not err in refusing to dismiss for want of equity jurisdiction.
The cross-appellants rely upon the court’s finding of fact that “[p]laintiffs have neither suffered nor been threatened with irreparable injury.” This finding was, however, adopted pursuant to that court’s prior opinion, which stated that
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This controversy, involving in its present posture the dismissal of a declaratory judgment action for nonjoinder of an “indispensable” party, began nearly 10 years ago with a traffic accident. An automobile owned by Edward Dutcher, who was not present when the accident occurred, was being driven by Donald Cionci, to whom Dutcher had given the keys. John Lynch and John Harris were passengers. The automobile crossed the median strip of the highway and collided with a truck being driven by Thomas Smith. Cionci, Lynch, and Smith were killed and Harris was severely injured.
Three tort actions were brought. Provident Trades-mens Bank, the administrator of the estate of passenger Lynch and petitioner here, sued the estate of the driver, Cionci, in a diversity action. Smith’s administratrix, and Harris in person, each brought a state-court action against the estate of Cionci, Dutcher the owner, and the estate of Lynch. These Smith and Harris actions, for unknown reasons, have never gone to trial and are still pending. The Lynch action against Cionci’s estate was settled for $50,000, which the estate of Cionci, being penniless, has never paid.
Dutcher, the owner of the automobile and a defendant in the as yet untried tort actions, had an automobile liability insurance policy with Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, a respondent here. That policy had an upper limit of $100,000 for all claims arising out of a single accident. This fund was potentially subject to two different sorts of claims by the tort plaintiffs. First, Dutcher himself might be held vicariously liable as Cionci’s “principal”; the likelihood of such a judgment against Dutcher is a matter of considerable doubt and dispute. Second, the policy by its terms covered the direct liability of any person driving Dutcher’s car with Dutcher’s “permission.”
The insurance company had declined, after notice, to defend in the tort action brought by Lynch’s estate against the estate of Cionci, believing that Cionci had not had permission and hence was not covered by the policy. The facts allegedly were that Dutcher had entrusted his car to Cionci, but that Cionci had made a detour from the errand for which Dutcher allowed his car to be taken. The estate of Lynch, armed with its $50,000 liquidated claim against the estate of Cionci, brought the present diversity action for a declaration that Cionci’s use of the car had been “with permission” of Dutcher. The only named defendants were the company and the estate of Cionci. The other two tort plaintiffs were joined as plaintiffs. Dutcher, a resident of the State of Pennsylvania as were all the plaintiffs, was not joined either as plaintiff or defendant. The failure to join him was not adverted to at the trial level.
The major question of law contested at trial was a state-law question. The District Court had ruled that, as a matter of the applicable (Pennsylvania) law, the driver of an automobile is presumed to have the permission of the owner. Hence, unless contrary evidence could be.introduced, the tort plaintiffs, now declaratory judgment plaintiffs, would be entitled to a directed verdict against the insurance company. The only possible contrary evidence was testimony by Dutcher as to restrictions he had imposed on Cionci’s use of the automobile. The two estate plaintiffs claimed, however, that under the Pennsylvania “Dead Man Rule” Dutcher was incompetent to testify on this matter as against them. The District Court upheld this claim. It ruled that under Pennsylvania law Dutcher was incompetent to testify against an estate if he had an “adverse” interest to that of the estate. It found such adversity in Dutcher’s potential need to call upon the insurance fund to pay judgments against himself, and his consequent interest in not having part or all of the fund used to pay judgments against Cionci. The District Court, therefore, directed verdicts in favor of the two estates. Dutcher was, however, allowed to testify as against the live plaintiff, Harris. The jury, nonetheless, found that Cionci had had permission, and hence awarded a verdict to Harris also.
Lumbermens appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, raising various state-law questions. The Court of Appeals did not reach any of these issues. Instead, after reargument en banc, it decided, 5-2, to reverse on two alternative grounds neither of which had been raised in the District Court or by the appellant.
The first of these grounds was that Dutcher was an indispensable party. The court held that the “adverse interests” that had rendered Dutcher incompetent to testify under the Pennsylvania Dead Man Rule also required him to be made a party. The court did not consider whether the fact that a verdict had already been rendered, without objection to the nonjoinder of Dutcher, affected the matter. Nor did it follow the provision of Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that findings of “indispensability” must be based on" stated pragmatic considerations. It held, to the contrary, that the right of a person who “may be affected” by the judgment to be joined is a “substantive” right, unaffected by the federal rules; that a trial court “may not proceed” in the absence of such a person; and that since Dutcher could not be joined as a defendant without destroying diversity jurisdiction the action had to be dismissed.
Since this ruling presented a serious challenge to the scope of the newly amended Rule 19, we granted cer-tiorari. 386 U. S. 940. Concluding that the inflexible approach adopted by the Court of Appeals in this case exemplifies the kind of reasoning that the Rule was designed to avoid, we reverse.
I.
The applicable parts of Rule 19 read as follows:
“Rule 19. Joinder of Persons Needed for Just Adjudication
“(a) Persons to be Joined if Feasible. A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action shall be joined as a party in the action if (1) in his absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties, or (2) he claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in his absence may (i) as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest or (ii) leave any of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of his claimed interest. If he has not been so joined, the court shall order that he be made a party. If he should join as a plaintiff but refuses to do so, he may be made a defendant, or, in a proper case, an involuntary plaintiff. If. the joined party objects to venue and his joinder would render the venue of the action improper, he shall be dismissed from the action.
“(b) Determination by Court Whenever Joinder not Feasible. If a person as described in subdivision (a) (l)-(2) hereof cannot be made a party, the court shall determine whether in equity and good conscience the action should proceed among the parties before it, or should be dismissed, the absent person being thus regarded as indispensable. The factors to be considered by the court include: first, to what extent a judgment rendered in the person’s absence might be prejudicial to him or those already parties; second, the extent to which, by protective provisions in the judgment, by the shaping of relief, or other measures, the prejudice can be lessened or avoided; third, whether a judgment rendered in the person’s absence will be adequate; fourth, whether the plaintiff will have an adequate remedy if the action is dismissed for nonjoinder.”
We may assume, at the outset, that Dutcher falls within the category of persons who, under § (a), should be “joined if feasible.” The action was for an adjudication of the validity of certain claims against a fund. Dutcher, faced with the possibility of judgments against him, had an interest in having the fund preserved to cover that potential liability. Hence there existed, when this case went to trial, at least the possibility that a judgment might impede Dutcher’s ability to protect his interest, or lead to later relitigation by him.
The optimum solution, an adjudication of the permission question that would be binding on all interested persons, was not “feasible,” however, for Dutcher could not be made a defendant without destroying diversity. Hence the problem was the one to which Rule 19 (b) appears to address itself: in the absence of a person who “should be joined if feasible,” should the court dismiss the action or proceed without him? Since this problem emerged for the first time in the Court of Appeals, there were also two subsidiary questions. First, what was the effect, if any, of the failure of the defendants to raise the matter in the District Court? Second, what was the importance, if any, of the fact that a judgment, binding on the parties although not binding on Dutcher, had already been reached after extensive litigation? The three questions prove, on examination, to be interwoven.
We conclude, upon consideration of the record and applying the “equity and good conscience” test of Rule 19 (b), that the Court of Appeals erred in not allowing the judgment to stand.
Rule 19 (b) suggests four “interests” that must be examined in each case to determine whether, in equity and good conscience, the court should proceed without a party whose absence from the litigation is compelled. Each of these interests must, in this case, be viewed entirely from an appellate perspective since the matter of joinder was not considered in the trial court. First, the plaintiff has an interest in having a forum. Before the trial, the strength of this interest obviously depends upon whether a satisfactory alternative forum exists. On appeal, if the plaintiff has won, he has a strong additional interest in preserving his judgment. Second, the defendant may properly wish to avoid multiple litigation, or inconsistent relief, or sole responsibility for a liability he shares with another. After trial, however, if the defendant has failed to assert this interest, it is quite proper to consider it foreclosed.
Third, there is the interest of the outsider whom it would have been desirable to join. Of course, since the outsider is not before the court, he cannot be bound by the judgment rendered. This means, however, only that a judgment is not res judicata as to, or legally enforceable against, a nonparty. It obviously does not mean either (a) that a court may never issue a judgment that, in practice, affects a nonparty or (b) that (to the contrary) a court may always proceed without considering the potential effect on nonparties simply because they are not “bound” in the technical sense. Instead, as Rule 19 (a) expresses it, the court must consider the extent to which the judgment may “as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect” his interest in the subject matter. When a case has reached the appeal stage the matter is more complex. The judgment appealed from may not in fact affect the interest of any outsider even though there existed, before trial, a possibility that a judgment affecting his interest would be rendered.' When necessary, however, a court of appeals should, on its own initiative, take steps to protect the absent party, who of course had no opportunity to plead and prove his interest below.
Fourth, there remains the interest of the courts and the public in complete, consistent, and efficient settlement of controversies. We read the Rule’s third criterion, whether the judgment issued in the absence of the nonjoined person will be “adequate,” to refer to this public stake in settling disputes by wholes, whenever possible, for clearly the plaintiff, who himself chose both the forum and the parties defendant, will not be heard to complain about the sufficiency of the relief obtainable against them. After trial, considerations of efficiency of course include the fact that the time and expense of a trial have already been spent.
Rule 19 (b) also directs a district court to consider the possibility of shaping relief to accommodate these four interests. Commentators had argued that greater attention should be paid to this potential solution to a joinder stymie, and the Rule now makes it explicit that a court should consider modification of a judgment as an alternative to dismissal. Needless to say, a court of appeals may also properly require suitable modification as a condition of affirmance.
Had the Court of Appeals applied Rule 19’s criteria to the facts of the present case, it could hardly have reached the conclusion it did. We begin with the plaintiffs’ viewpoint. It is difficult to decide at this stage whether they would have had an “adequate” remedy had the action been dismissed before trial for non-joinder: we cannot here determine whether the plaintiffs could have brought the same action, against the same parties plus Dutcher, in a state court. After trial, however, the “adequacy” of. this hypothetical alternative, from the plaintiffs’ point of view, was obviously greatly diminished. Their interest in preserving a fully litigated judgment should be overborne only by rather greater opposing considerations than would be required at an earlier stage when the plaintiffs’ only concern was for a federal rather than a state forum.
Opposing considerations in this case are hard to find. The defendants had no stake, either asserted or real, in the joinder of Dutcher. They showed no interest in joinder until the Court of Appeals took the matter into its own hands. This properly forecloses any interest of theirs, but for purposes of clarity we note that the insurance company, whose liability was limited to $100,000, had or will have full opportunity to litigate each claim on that fund against the claimant involved. Its only concern with the absence of Dutcher was and is to obtain a windfall escape from its defeat at trial.
The interest of the outsider, Dutcher, is more difficult to reckon. The Court of Appeals, concluding that it should not follow Rule 19’s command to determine whether, as a practical matter, the judgment impaired the nonparty’s ability to protect his rights, simply quoted the District Court’s reasoning on the Dead Man issue as proof that Dutcher had a “right” to be joined:
“ ‘The subject matter of this suit is the coverage of Lumbermens’ policy issued to Dutcher. Depending upon the outcome of this trial, Dutcher may have the policy all to himself or he may have to share its coverage with the Cionci Estate, thereby extending the availability of the proceeds of the policy to satisfy verdicts and judgments in favor of the two Estate plaintiffs. Sharing the coverage of a policy of insurance with finite limits with another, and thereby making that policy available to claimants against that other person is immediately worth less than having the coverage of such policy available to Dutcher alone. By the outcome in the instant case, to the extent that the two Estate plaintiffs will have the proceeds of the policy available to them in their claims against Cionci’s estate, Dutcher will lose a measure of protection. Conversely, to the extent that the proceeds of this policy are not available to the two Estate plaintiffs Dutcher will gain.... It is sufficient for the purpose of determining adversity [of interest] that it appears clearly that the measure of Dutcher’s protection under this policy of insurance is dependent upon the outcome of this suit. That being so, Dutcher’s interest in these proceedings is adverse to the interest of the two Estate plaintiffs, the parties who represent, on this record, the interests of the deceased persons in the matter in controversy.’ ”
There is a logical error in the Court of Appeals’ appropriation of this reasoning for its own quite different purposes: Dutcher had an “adverse” interest (sufficient to invoke the Dead Man Rule) because he would have been benefited by a ruling in favor of the insurance company; the question before the Court of Appeals, however, was whether Dutcher was harmed by the judgment against the insurance company.
The two questions are not the same. If the three plaintiffs had lost to the insurance company on the permission issue, that loss would have ended the matter favorably to Dutcher. If, as has happened, the three plaintiffs obtain a judgment against the insurance company on the permission issue, Dutcher may still claim that as a nonparty he is not estopped by that judgment from relitigating the issue. At that point it might be argued that Dutcher should be bound by the previous decision because, although technically a nonparty, he had purposely bypassed an adequate opportunity to intervene. We do not now decide whether such an argument would be correct under the circumstances of this case. If, however, Dutcher is properly foreclosed by his failure to intervene in the present litigation, then the joinder issue considered in the Court of Appeals vanishes, for any rights of Dutcher’s have been lost by his own inaction.
If Dutcher is not foreclosed by his failure to intervene below, then he is not “bound” by the judgment against the insurance company and, in theory, he has not been harmed. There remains, however, the practical question whether Dutcher is likely to have any need, and if so will have any opportunity, to relitigate. The only possible threat to him is that if the fund is used to pay judgments against Cionci the money may in fact have disappeared before Dutcher has an opportunity to assert his interest. Upon examination, we find this supposed threat neither large nor unavoidable.
The state-court actions against Dutcher had lain dormant for years at the pleading stage by the time the Court of Appeals acted. Petitioner asserts here that under the applicable Pennsylvania vicarious liability law there is virtually no chance of recovery against Dutcher. We do not accept this assertion as fact, but the matter could have been explored below. Furthermore, even in the event of tort judgments against Dutcher, it is unlikely that he will be prejudiced by the outcome here. The potential claimants against Dutcher himself are identical with the potential claimants against Cionci’s estate. Should the claimants seek to collect from Dutcher personally, he may be able to raise the permission issue defensively, making it irrelevant that the actual monies paid from the fund may have disappeared: Dutcher can assert that Cionci did not have his permission and that therefore the payments made on Cionci’s behalf out of Dutcher’s insurance policy should properly be credited against Dutcher’s own liability. Of course, when Dutcher raises this defense he may lose, either on the merits of the permission issue or on the ground that the issue is foreclosed by Dutcher’s failure to intervene in the present case, but Dutcher will not have been prejudiced by the failure of the District Court here to order him joined.
If the Court of Appeals was unconvinced that the threat to Dutcher was trivial, it could nevertheless have avoided all difficulties by proper phrasing of the decree. The District Court, for unspecified reasons, had refused to order immediate payment on the Cionci judgment. Payment could have been withheld pending the suits against Dutcher and relitigation (if that became necessary) by him. In this Court, furthermore, counsel for petitioner represented orally that the tort plaintiffs would accept a limitation of all claims to the amount of the insurance policy. Obviously such a compromise could have been reached below had the Court of Appeals been willing to abandon its rigid approach and seek ways to preserve what was, as to the parties, subject to the appellant’s other contentions, a perfectly valid judgment.
The suggestion of potential relitigation of the question of “permission” raises the fourth “interest” at stake in joinder cases — efficiency. It might have been preferable, at the trial level, if there were a forum available in which both the company and Dutcher could have been made defendants, to dismiss the action and force the plaintiffs to go elsewhere. Even this preference would have been highly problematical, however, for the actual threat of relitigation by Dutcher depended on there being judgments against him and on the amount of the fund, which was not revealed to the District Court. By the time the case reached the Court of Appeals, however, the problematical preference on efficiency grounds had entirely disappeared: there was no reason then to throw away a valid judgment just because it did not theoretically settle the whole controversy.
II.
Application of Rule 19 (b)’s “equity and good conscience” test for determining whether to proceed or dismiss would doubtless have led to a contrary result below. The Court of Appeals’ reasons for disregarding the Rule remain to be examined. The majority of the court concluded that the Rule was inapplicable because “substantive” rights are involved, and substantive rights are not affected by the Federal Rules. Although the court did not articulate exactly what the substantive rights are, or what law determines them, we take it to have been making the following argument: (1) there is a category of persons called “indispensable parties”; (2) that category is defined by substantive law and the definition cannot be modified by rule; (3) the right of a person falling within that category to participate in the lawsuit in question is also a substantive matter, and is absolute.
With this we may contrast the position that is reflected in Rule 19. Whether a person is “indispensable,” that is, whether a particular lawsuit must be dismissed in the absence of that person, can only be determined in the context of particular litigation. There is a large category, whose limits are not presently in question, of persons who, in the Rule’s terminology, should be “joined if feasible,” and who, in the older terminology, were called either necessary or indispensable parties. Assuming the existence of a person who should be joined if feasible, the only further question arises when joinder is not possible and the court must decide whether to dismiss or to proceed without him. To use the familiar but confusing terminology, the decision to proceed is a decision that the absent person is merely “necessary” while the decision to dismiss is a decision that he is “indispensable.” The decision whether to dismiss (i. e., the decision whether the person missing is “indispensable”) must be based on factors varying with the different cases, some such factors being substantive, some procedural, some compelling by themselves, and some subject to balancing against opposing interests. Rule 19 does not prevent the assertion of compelling substantive interests; it merely commands the courts to examine each controversy to make certain that the interests really exist. To say that a court “must” dismiss in the absence of an indispensable party and that it “cannot proceed” without him puts the matter the wrong way around: a court does not know whether a particular person is “indispensable” until it has examined the situation to determine whether it can proceed without him.
The Court of Appeals concluded, although it was the first court to hold, that the 19th century joinder cases in this Court created a federal, common-law, substantive right in a certain class of persons to be joined in the corresponding lawsuits. At the least, that was not the way the matter started. The joinder problem first arose in equity and in the earliest case giving rise to extended discussion the problem was the relatively simple one of the inefficiency of litigation involving only some of the interested persons. A defendant being sued.by several cotenants objected that the other cotenants were not made parties. Chief Justice Marshall replied:
“This objection does not affect the jurisdiction, but addresses itself to the policy of the Court. Courts of equity require, that all the parties concerned in interest shall be brought before them, that the matter in controversy may be finally settled. This equitable rule, however, is framed by the Court itself, and is subject to its discretion.... [B]eing introduced by the Court itself, for the purposes of justice, [the rule] is susceptible of modification for the promotion of those purposes.... In the exercise of its discretion, the Court will require the plaintiff to do all in his power to bring every person concerned in interest before the Court. But, if the case may be completely decided as between the litigant parties, the circumstance that an interest exists in some other person, whom the process of the Court cannot reach... ought not to prevent a decree upon its merits.”
Following this case there arose three cases, also in equity, that the Court of Appeals here held to have declared a “substantive” right to be joined. It is true that these cases involved what would now be called “substantive” rights. This substantive involvement of the absent person with the controversy before the Court was, however, in each case simply an inescapable fact of the situation presented to the Court for adjudication. The Court in each case left the outsider with no more “rights” than it had already found belonged to him. The question in each case was simply whether, given the substantive involvement of the outsider, it was proper to proceed to adjudicate as between the parties.
The first of the cases was Mallow v. Hinde, 12 Wheat. 193, in which, in essence, the plaintiff sought specific performance of a contract to convey land, but sought it not against his vendor (who could not be joined) but against a person who claimed through an entirely different chain of title. The Court saw that any declaration of rights between the parties before it would either purport (incorrectly) to determine the validity of plaintiff’s contract with his grantor, or would decide nothing. The Court said, in language quoted here by the Court of Appeals:
“In this case, the complainants have no rights separable from, and independent of, the rights of persons not made parties. The rights of those not before the Court lie at the very foundation of the claim of right by the plaintiffs, and a final decision cannot be made between the parties litigant without directly affecting and prejudicing the rights of others not made parties....
“We do not put this case upon the ground of jurisdiction, but upon a much broader ground.... We put it on the ground that no Court can adjudicate directly upon a person’s right, without the party being either actually or constructively before the Court.”
Nothing in this language is inconsistent with the Rule 19 formulation, or otherwise suggests that lower courts are expected to proceed without examining the actual interest of the non joined person. As the Court explicitly stated, there is no question of “jurisdiction” and there can be no binding adjudication of a person’s rights in the absence of that person. Rather, the problem under the circumstances was that the substantive involvement of the grantor was such that in his absence there was nothing for the Court to decide.
The second case relied upon by the Court of Appeals, Northern Indiana R. Co. v. Michigan Central R. Co., 15 How. 233, presents a different aspect of joinder. There suit was brought for an injunction against construction by defendant of a railroad that it was under contract to a non joined outsider to build. Thus the plaintiff was seeking equitable relief that would, in practice, abrogate the contractual rights of a nonparty. Among the unpleasant possibilities entailed by proceeding was the likelihood that the defendant might find itself subject to directly conflicting injunctive orders. The Court ruled that,
“... in a case like the present, where a court cannot but see that the interest of the New Albany Company must be vitally affected, if the relief prayed by the complainants be given, the court must refuse to exercise jurisdiction in the case, or become the instrument of injustice.”
Again, the Court of Appeals’ reliance on this language to show that in any case where an outsider “may be affected” it is necessarily unjust to proceed, is altogether misplaced: the Court in Northern Indiana R. Co. simply found that there would be injustice in proceeding given the particular factual and legal situation before it. Neither Rule 19, nor we, today, mean to foreclose an examination in future cases to see whether an injustice is being, or might be, done to the substantive, or, for that matter, constitutional, rights of an outsider by proceeding with a particular case. In this instance, however, no such examination was made below, and no such injustice appears on the record here.
The most influential of the cases in which this Court considered the question whether to proceed or dismiss in the absence of an interested but not joinable outsider is Shields v. Barrow, 17 How. 130, referred to in the opinion below. There the Court attempted, perhaps unfortunately, to state general definitions of those persons without whom litigation could or could not proceed. In the former category were placed
“Persons having an interest in the controversy, and who ought to be made parties, in order that the court may act on that rule which requires it to decide on, and finally determine the entire controversy, and do complete justice, by adjusting all the rights involved in it. These persons are commonly termed necessary parties; but if their interests are separable from those of the parties before the court, so that the court can proceed to a decree, and do complete and final justice, without affecting other persons not before the court, the latter are not indispensable parties.”
The persons in the latter category were
“Persons who not only have an interest in the controversy, but an interest of such a nature that a final decree cannot be made without either affecting that interest, or leaving the controversy in such a condition that its final termination may be wholly inconsistent with equity and good conscience.”
These generalizations are still valid today, and they are consistent with the requirements of Rule 19, but they are not a substitute for the analysis required by that Rule. Indeed, the second Shields definition states, in rather different fashion, the criteria for decision announced in Rule 19 (b). One basis for dismissal is prejudice to the rights of an absent party that “cannot” be avoided in issuance of a' final decree. Alternatively, if the decree can be so written that it protects the interests of the absent persons, but as so written it leaves the controversy so situated that the outcome may be inconsistent with “equity and good conscience,” the suit should be dismissed.
The majority of the Court of Appeals read Shields v. Barrow to say that a person whose interests “may be affected” by the decree of the court is an indispensable party, and that all indispensable parties have a “substantive right” to have suits dismissed in their absence. We are unable to read Shields as saying either. It dealt only with persons whose interests must, unavoidably, be affected by a decree and it said nothing about substantive rights. Rule 19 (b), which the Court of Appeals dismissed as an ineffective attempt to change the substantive rights stated in Shields, is, on the contrary, a valid statement of the criteria for determining whether to proceed or dismiss in the forced absence of an interested person. It takes, for aught that now appears, adequate account of the very real, very substantive claims to fairness on the part of outsiders that may arise in some cases. This, however, simply is not such a case.
III.
The Court of Appeals stated a second and distinct ground for reversing the District Court and ordering dismissal of the action. It will be recalled that at the time the present declaratory judgment action came to trial two tort actions were pending in the state courts. In one, the estate of the deceased truck driver, Smith, was suing the estate of Cionci, as tortfeasor, plus Dutcher, on the theory that Cionci was doing an errand for him at the time of the accident, plus Lynch’s estate, on the theory that Lynch had been in “control” of Cionci. Harris, the injured passenger, was suing the same three defendants on the same theories in a separate action. The Court of Appeals concluded that since these actions “presented the mooted question as to the coverage of the policy,” the issue presented in the present proceeding, the District Court should have declined jurisdiction in order to allow the state courts to settle- this question of state law.
We believe the Court of Appeals decided this question incorrectly. While we reaffirm our prior holding that a federal district court should, in the exercise of discretion, decline to exercise diversity jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action raising issues of state law when those same issues are being presented contemporaneously to state courts, e. g., Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co., 316 U. S. 491, we do not find that to be the case here.
This issue, like the joinder issue, was not raised at trial. While we do not now declare that a court of appeals may never on its own motion compel dismissal of an action as an unwarranted intrusion upon state adjudication of state law, we do conclude that, this being a discretionary matter, the existence of a verdict reached after a prolonged trial in which the defendants did not invoke the pending state actions should be taken into consideration in deciding whether dismissal is the wiser course.
It can hardly be said that Lynch’s administrator, the plaintiff and petitioner in this case, would have had a satisfactory opportunity to litigate the issue of Cionci’s permission in the state actions. The Court of Appeals said that “all the persons involved in the accident were parties” to the state-court actions. If the implication is that the state actions could have resulted in judgments in favor of Lynch’s estate and against the insurance company on the issue of Cionei’s permission, this implication is not correct. The insurance company was not a party to the tort actions, and was not defending Cionci’s estate. Lynch’s estate was a party only in the sense that Lynch’s personal representative (a different person from Lynch’s administrator, the plaintiff in this case) was made a defendant in tort. Furthermore, the Smith and Harris actions against Cionci had nothing to do with the issue of insurance coverage: had Smith or Harris won a judgment against Cionci’s estate, they would have had to bring a further action against the insurance company; this further action could well have been brought in a federal court. In short, the net result of dismissal here would presumably have been a diversity action identical with this one, except that Lynch’s estate would have been compelled to wait upon the convenience of plaintiffs over whom it had no control, and would have been dependent upon a victory by those plaintiffs in a suit in which it was a defendant.
The issues that were before the state courts in the tort actions were not the same as the issues presented by this case. To be sure, a critical question of fact in both cases was what Dutcher said to Cionci when he gave him the keys. But in the state-court actions the ultimate question was whether Cionci was acting as Dutcher’s agent, thus making Dutcher personally liable for Cionci’s tort. In this case the question was simply whether Cionci had “permission,” thus bringing Cionci’s own liability within the coverage of the insurance policy. Resolution of the “agency” issue in the state court would have had no bearing on the “permission” issue even if that resolution were binding on Lynch’s estate. Furthermore, although the state court would have had to rule (and still will have to do so, if the cases are ever tried) whether or not Dutcher may testify against the estates under the Dead Man Rule, this question is also a different one in the state and federal cases. In the state cases, Dutcher was a defendant, and the question would be whether he could testify in defense against his own liability. In the present case the question was rather whether he could testify, as a nonparty, on the coverage of his insurance policy.
We think it clear that the judgment below cannot stand. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for consideration of those issues raised on appeal that have not been considered, and, should the Court of Appeals affirm the District Court as to those issues, for appropriate disposition preserving the judgment of the District Court and protecting the interests of nonjoined persons.
It is so ordered.
Appellants challenged the District Court’s ruling on the Dead Man issue, the fairness of submitting the question as to Harris to a jury that had been directed to find in favor of the two estates whose position was factually indistinguishable, and certain instructions.
For convenience, we treat these interests in a different order from that appearing in Rule 19 (b). Our list follows that of Reed, Compulsory Joinder of Parties in Civil Actions, 55 Mich. L. Rev. 327, 330 (1957).
The Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in its Note on the 1966 Revision of Rule 19, quoted at 3 Moore
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Warren
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We are asked to interpret that provision of the Railway Labor Act which created the National Railroad Adjustment Board for the resolution of minor grievances in the event that the parties were unable to settle them by negotiation. The ultimate question is whether a railway labor organization can resort to a strike over matters pending before the Adjustment Board.
The Chicago River and Indiana Railroad Company operates the switching and yard facilities at the Chicago stockyards. A segment of the employees of the River Road were represented by the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen. A collective bargaining agreement between the Brotherhood and the River Road was in existence throughout the period covered by this case. The present disagreement arises from an accumulation of twenty-one grievances of members of the Brotherhood against the carrier. Nineteen of these were claims for additional compensation, one was a claim for reinstatement to a higher position, and one was for reinstatement in the employ of the carrier. When negotiations failed, the Brotherhood called a strike. Because of the serious nature of the impending work stoppage, the National Mediation Board proffered its services. The mediator was unsuccessful, and upon his withdrawal, the River Road submitted the controversy to the Adjustment Board. The Brotherhood promptly issued a strike call for four days later.
The River Road then sought relief from a District Court. Because of the threatened irreparable injury to the carrier, its employees and the 600 industries and 27 railroads served by it, the complaint prayed for a preliminary injunction, and ultimately a permanent injunction, against a strike by the Brotherhood over the grievances pending before the Adjustment Board. A temporary restraining order was issued, but that order was vacated and the complaint dismissed upon the finding by the district judge that the Norris-LaGuardia Act was applicable and that the court lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief requested. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed. 229 F. 2d 926. A permanent injunction was accordingly entered by the District Court and affirmed by the Seventh Circuit. We granted certiorari in order to resolve an important question concerning interpretation and application of the Railway Labor Act. 352 U. S. 865.
The grievances for which redress is sought by the Brotherhood are admittedly “minor disputes” as that phrase is known in the parlance of the Railway Labor Act. These are controversies over the meaning of an existing collective bargaining agreement in a particular fact situation, generally involving only one employee. § 2, Sixth. They may be contrasted with “major disputes” which result when there is disagreement in the bargaining process for a new contract. § 2, Seventh. See Elgin, J. & E. R. Co. v. Burley, 325 U. S. 711, 722-724.
The first step toward settlement of either kind of dispute is negotiation and conference between the parties. Section 3, First (i), provides that—
“The disputes between an employee or group of employees and a carrier or carriers growing out of grievances or out of the interpretation or application of agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, or working conditions . . . shall be handled in the usual manner up to and including the chief operating officer of the carrier designated to handle such disputes . . . .”
If the parties are unable to reach an agreement, the section continues—
“. . . but, failing to reach an adjustment in this manner, the disputes may be referred by petition of the parties or by either party to the appropriate division of the [National Railroad] Adjustment Board with a full statement of the facts and all supporting data bearing upon the disputes.”
Section 3, First (m), declares that—
“The awards of the several divisions of the Adjustment Board . . . shall be final and binding upon both parties to the dispute . . . .”
This language is unequivocal. Congress has set up a tribunal to handle minor disputes which have not been resolved by the parties themselves. Awards of this Board are “final and binding upon both parties.” And either side may submit the dispute to the Board. The Brotherhood suggests that we read the Act to mean only that an Adjustment Board has been organized and that the parties are free to make use of its procedures if they wish to; but that there is no compulsion on either side to allow the Board to settle a dispute if an alternative remedy, such as resort to economic duress, seems more desirable. Such an interpretation would render meaningless those provisions in the Act which allow one side to submit a dispute to the Board, whose decision shall be final and binding on both sides. If the Brotherhood is correct, the Adjustment Board could act only if the union and the carrier were amenable to its doing so. The .language of § 3, First, reads otherwise and should be literally applied in the absence of a clear showing of a contrary or qualified intention of Congress.
Legislative history of the provisions creating the National Railroad Adjustment Board reinforces the literal interpretation of the Act. The present law is a composite of two major pieces of legislation. Most of the basic framework was adopted in 1926. In 1934, after eight years of experience, the statute was amended, and in that amendment the Adjustment Board was born.
The distinction between “major disputes” and “minor disputes” was found in the 1926 statute. Above the level of negotiation and conference, each was to follow a separate procedure. Section 3, First, of that Act called upon carriers or groups of carriers and their employees to agree to the formation of boards of adjustment, composed equally of representatives of labor and management, to resolve the “minor disputes.” If this step were unsuccessful, these disputes along with the “major disputes” became a function of the Board of Mediation, predecessor of the National Mediation Board.
The obvious lack of any compulsion toward a settlement of disputes was a basic characteristic of the Act and proved to be a major weakness in the procedures for handling “minor disputes.” As stated in the Report of the House of Representatives Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, after hearings on the 1934 amendment: “In many instances . . . the carriers and the employees have been unable to reach agreements to establish such boards [of adjustment].” H. R. Rep. No. 1944, 73d Cong., 2d Sess. 3. This was not the only weakness, however. “Many thousands of these [minpr] disputes have been considered by boards established under the Railway Labor Act; but the boards have been unable to reach a majority decision, and so the proceedings have been deadlocked.” Ibid.
This condition was in marked contrast to the declared purpose of the 1926 Act “. . . to settle all disputes, whether arising out of the application of . . . agreements or otherwise, in order to avoid any interruption to commerce or to the operation of any carrier growing out of any dispute between the carrier and the employees thereof.” § 2, First. The Report continued:
“These unadjusted disputes have become so numerous that on several occasions the employees have resorted to the issuance of strike ballots and threatened to interrupt interstate commerce in order to secure an adjustment. This has made it necessary for the President of the United States to intervene and establish an emergency board .to investigate the controversies. This condition should be corrected in the interest of industrial peace and of uninterrupted transportation service.” Ibid.
The means chosen to correct this situation are the present provisions of § 3, First, concerning the National Railroad Adjustment Board. The Board was set up by Congress, making it unnecessary for the parties to agree to establish their own boards. In case of a deadlock on the Adjustment Board, which continued the policy of equal representation of labor and management, the appropriate division is allowed to select a neutral referee to sit with them and break the tie. If the division cannot agree even on a referee, the Act provides that one shall be appointed by the National Mediation Board. Thus was the machinery built for the disposition of minor grievances.
The change was made with the full concurrence of the national railway labor organizations. Commissioner Joseph B. Eastman, Federal Coordinator of Transportation and principal draftsman of the 1934 bill, complimented the unions on conceding the right to strike over “minor disputes” in favor of the procedures of the Adjustment Board:
“The willingness of the employees to agree to such a provision is, in my judgment, a very important .concession and one of which full advantage should be taken in the public interest. I regard it as, perhaps, the most important part of the bill.”
Asked if the Act made it a matter of discretion whether disputes would be submitted to the Adjustment Board, he replied in the negative. It was, he said, a matter of duty—
“. . . and it is my understanding that the employees in the case of these minor grievances — and that is all that can be dealt with by the adjustment board — are entirely agreeable to those provisions of the law.
“I think that is a very important concession on their part. . . . [T]his law is in effect an agreement on the part of the parties to arbitrate all of these minor disputes.”
The chief spokesman for the railway labor organizations was George M. Harrison. He appeared as chairman of the legislative committee of the Railway Labor Executives’ Association before both the House of Representatives and the Senate Committees. This Association comprised the twenty-one standard railway labor groups, including the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen. He testified before the House Committee:
“So, out of all of that experience and recognizing the character of the services given to the people of this country by our industry and ho.w essential it is to the welfare of the country, these organizations have come to the conclusion that in respect to these minor-grievance cases that grow out of the interpretation and/or application of the contracts already made that they can very well permit those disputes to be decided, ... by an adjustment board.”
Later, before the Senate Committee, he declared:
“Grievances are instituted against railroad officers’ actions, and we are willing to take our chances with this national board because we believe, out of our experience, that the national board is the best and most efficient method of getting a determination of these many controversies that arise on these railroads between the officers and the employees.
“These railway labor organizations have always opposed compulsory determination of their controversies. . . . [W]e are now ready to concede that we can risk having our grievances go to a board and get them determined, and that is a contribution that these organizations are willing to make.”
The voice of labor was not unanimous in this concession. The representative of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters vehemently objected to the adoption of § 3, First.
“We are unalterably opposed to paragraph M, . . . [which] brings about compulsory arbitration and prevents the use of the only weapon in the hands of organized labor. We believe that a very dangerous precedent would be established with the passage of this paragraph, and to the best of our knowledge it is the first time that any such measure has been enacted by the Congress of the United States.’.’
This record is convincing that there was general understanding between both the supporters and the opponents of the 1934 amendment that the provisions dealing with the Adjustment Board were to be considered as compulsory arbitration in this limited field. Our reading of the Act is therefore confirmed, not rebutted, by the legislative history.
The only question which remains is whether the federal courts can compel compliance with the provisions of the Act to the extent of enjoining a union from striking to defeat the jurisdiction of the Adjustment Board. The Brotherhood contends that the Norris-LaGuardia Act has withdrawn the power of federal courts to issue injunctions in labor disputes. That limitation-, it is urged, applies with full force to all railway labor disputes as well as labor controversies in other industries.
We hold that the Norris-LaGuardia Act cannot be read alone in matters dealing with railway labor disputes. There must be an accommodation of that statute and the Railway Labor Act so that the obvious purpose in the enactment of each is preserved. We think that the purposes of these Acts are reconcilable.
In adopting the Railway Labor Act, Congress endeavored to bring about stable relationships between labor and management in this most important national industry. It found from the experience between 1926 and 1934 that the failure of voluntary machinery to resolve a large number of minor disputes called for a strengthening of the Act to provide an effective agency, in which both sides participated, for the final adjustment of such controversies. Accumulation of these disputes had resulted in the aggregate being serious enough to threaten disruption of transportation. Hence, with the full consent of the brotherhoods, the 1934 amendment became law.
The Norris-LaGuardia Act, on the other hand, was designed primarily to protect working men in the exercise of organized, economic power, which is vital to collective bargaining. The Act aimed to correct existing abuses of the injunctive remedy in labor disputes. Federal courts had been drawn into the field under the guise either of enforcing federal statutes, principally the Sherman Act, or through diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. In the latter cases, the courts employed principles of federal law frequently at variance with the concepts of labor law in the States where they sat. Congress acted to prevent the injunctions of the federal courts from upsetting the natural interplay of the competing economic forces of labor and capital. Rep. LaGuardia, during the floor debates on the 1932 Act, recognized that the machinery of the Railway Labor Act. channeled these economic forces, in matters dealing with railway labor, into special processes intended to compromise them. Such controversies, therefore, are not the same as those in which the injunction strips labor of its primary weapon without substituting any reasonable alternative.
In prior cases involving railway labor disputes, this Court has authorized the use of injunctive relief to vindicate the processes of the Railway Labor Act. Virginian R. Co. v. System Federation No. 40, 300 U. S. 515, was an action by the union to enjoin compliance with the Act’s provisions for certification of a bargaining representative. The question raised was whether a federal court could issue an injunction in a labor dispute. The Court held:
“It suffices to say that the Norris-LaGuardia Act can affect the present decree only so far as its provisions are found not to conflict with those of § 2, Ninth, of the Railway Labor Act, authorizing the relief which has been granted. Such provisions cannot be rendered nugatory by the earlier and more general provisions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act.” Id., at 563.
In Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Howard, 343 U. S. 768, and other similar eases, the Court held that the specific provisions of the Railway Labor Act take precedence over the more general provisions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act.
“Our conclusion is that the District Court has jurisdiction and power to issue necessary injunctive orders [to enforce compliance with the requirements of the Railway Labor Act] notwithstanding the provisions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act.” Id,., at 774.
This is a clear situation for the application of that principle.
The Brotherhood has cited several cases in which it has been held that the Norris-LaGuardia Act’s ban on federal injunctions is not lifted because the conduct of the union is unlawful under some other statute. We believe that these are inapposite to this case. None involved the need to accommodate two statutes, when both were adopted as a part of a pattern of labor legislation.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals must be affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Whittaker took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
44 Stat. 577, as amended, 45 U. S. C. §§ 151-188.
The relationship of labor and management in the railroad industry has developed on a pattern different from other industries. The fundamental premises and principles of the Railway Labor Act are not the same as those which form the basis of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 151 et seq. It is one of those differences which underlies the controversy in this case.
In addition to the importance of the question, there was a conflict in the decisions of the Courts of Appeals. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Central of Georgia R. Co., 229 F. 2d 901, decided by the Fifth Circuit, came to a conclusion contrary to that of the Seventh Circuit in this case. Certiorari had been granted in both cases, 352 U. S. 865, but we dismissed the writ in the Central of Georgia controversy upon a suggestion of mootness. 352 U. S. 995.
45 U. S. C. § 152, Sixth.
45 U. S. C. § 152, Seventh.
45 U. S. C. § 153, First (i).
45 U. S. C. §153, First (m).
The Brotherhood does not discuss this interpretation in the event that the union had referred the dispute to the Adjustment Board, as is normally the case in grievance disputes, and the carrier was recalcitrant. It is to be doubted that the Brotherhood would support allowing carriers the same right to defeat the jurisdiction of the Adjustment Board that it claims for itself. The statutory language, however, would support no distinction.
44 Stat. 577.
48 Stat. 1185.
44 Stat. 578-579.
44 Stat. 577-578.
Section 2, Second, authorizes carriers or groups of carriers and their employees to agree to the establishment of system, group or regional boards of adjustment similar to those in the 1926 Act. These boards can have jurisdiction co-extensive with that of the National Board, but the existence of the latter insures against accumulation of disputes through ineffectiveness of the local boards.
“Minor disputes” were eliminated from the functions of the Mediation Board by the 1934 amendment. However, that Board can still become involved in a “minor dispute” case if “any labor emergency is found by it to exist at any time.” § 5, First, 45 U. S. C. § 155, First. Such was the fact in this case when the threatened strike presented an emergency situation. The Mediation Board enters these cases solely on its own motion, however. It cannot be called into the dispute by either or both of the parties or by an employee or group of employees as is true for disputes not within the jurisdiction of the Adjustment Board.
Hearings before House of Representatives Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce on H. R. 7650, 73d Cong., 2d Sess. 47.
Id., at 58, 60.
Id., at 81-82.
Hearings before Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce on S. 3266, 73d Cong., 2d Sess. 33, 35.
Hearings before House of Representatives Committee, supra, note 15, at 118.
47 Stat. 70, as amended, 29 U. S. C. §§ 101-115.
75 Cong. Rec. 5499, 5503-5504.
The Adjustment Board cannot entertain a case on its own motion. Its processes must be invoked by one or both of the parties. In this case, the River Road filed the grievances with the Board before seeking an injunction. Cf. the exhaustion of remedies provision in § 8 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act. 29 U. S. C. § 108.
Graham v. Brotherhood of L. F. & E., 338 U. S. 232; Tunstall v. Brotherhood of L. F. & E., 323 U. S. 210; Steele v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 323 U. S. 192. See also Rolfes v. Dwellingham, 198 F. 24 591.
The Norris-LaGuardia Act has been held to prevent the issuance of an injunction in a railway labor case involving a “major dispute.” Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Toledo, P. & W. R. Co., 321 U. S. 50. In such a case, of course, the Railway Labor Act does not provide a process for a final decision like that of the Adjustment Board in a “minor dispute” ease.
Milk Wagon Drivers’ Union v. Lake Valley Farm Products, Inc., 311 U. S. 91; East Texas Motor Freight Lines v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 163 F. 2d 10; cf. W. L. Mead, Inc., v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 217 F. 2d 6; In re Third Avenue Transit Corp., 192 F. 2d 971; Carter v. Herrin Motor Freight Lines, Inc., 131 F. 2d 557; Wilson & Co. v. Birl, 105 F. 2d 948.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | G | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Me. Chief Justice Waeren
delivered the opinion of the Court.
By leave of the Court, 382 U. S. 898, South Carolina has filed a bill of complaint, seeking a declaration that selected provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 violate the Federal Constitution, and asking for an injunction against enforcement of these provisions by the Attorney General. Original jurisdiction is founded on the presence of a controversy between a State and a citizen of another State under Art. Ill, § 2, of the Constitution. See Georgia v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 324 U. S. 439. Because no issues of fact were raised in the complaint, and because of South Carolina’s desire to obtain a ruling prior to its primary elections in June 1966, we dispensed with appointment of a special master and expedited our hearing of the case.
Recognizing that the questions presented were of urgent concern to the entire country, we invited all of the States to participate in this proceeding as friends of the Court. A majority responded by submitting or joining in briefs on the merits, some supporting South Carolina and others the Attorney General. Seven of these States also requested and received permission to argue the case orally at our hearing. Without exception, despite the emotional overtones of the proceeding, the briefs and oral arguments were temperate, lawyerlike and constructive. All viewpoints on the issues have been fully developed, and this additional assistance has been most helpful to the Court.
The Voting Rights Act was designed by Congress to banish the blight of racial discrimination in voting, which has infected the electoral process in parts of our country for nearly a century. The Act creates stringent new remedies for voting discrimination where it persists on a pervasive scale, and in addition the statute strengthens existing remedies for pockets of voting discrimination elsewhere in the country. Congress assumed the power to prescribe these remedies from § 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment, which authorizes the National Legislature to effectuate by “appropriate” measures the constitutional prohibition against racial discrimination in voting. We hold that the sections of the Act which are properly before us are an appropriate means for carrying out Congress’ constitutional responsibilities and are consonant with all other provisions of the Constitution. We therefore deny South Carolina’s request that enforcement of these sections of the Act_be enjoined.
I.
The constitutional propriety of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 must be judged with reference to the historical experience which it reflects. Before enacting the measure, Congress explored with great care the problem of racial discrimination in voting. The House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary each held hearings for nine days and received testimony from a total of 67 witnesses. More than three full days were consumed discussing the bill on the floor of the House, while the debate in the Senate covered 26 days in all. At the close of these deliberations, the verdict of both chambers was overwhelming. The House approved the bill by a vote of 328-74, and the measure passed the Senate by a margin of 79-18.
Two points emerge vividly from the voluminous legislative history of the Act contained in the committee hearings and floor debates. First: Congress felt itself confronted by an insidious and pervasive evil which had been perpetuated in certain parts of our country through unremitting and ingenious defiance of the Constitution. Second: Congress concluded that the unsuccessful rem-ediés which it had prescribed in the past would have to be replaced by sterner and more elaborate measures in order to satisfy the clear commands of the Fifteenth Amendment. We pause here to summarize the majority reports of the House and Senate Committees, which document in considerable detail the factual basis for these reactions by Congress. See H. R. Rep. No. 439, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 8-16 (hereinafter cited as House Report); S. Rep. No. 162, pt. 3, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 3-16 (hereinafter cited as Senate Report).
The Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution was ratified in 1870. Promptly thereafter Congress passed the Enforcement Act of 1870, which made it a crime for public officers and private persons to obstruct exercise of the right to vote. The statute was amended in the following year to provide for detailed federal supervision of the electoral process, from registration to the certification of returns. As the years passed and fervor for racial equality waned, enforcement of the laws became spotty and ineffective, and most of their provisions were repealed in 1894. The remnants have had little significance in the recently renewed battle against voting discrimination.
Meanwhile, beginning in 1890, the States of Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia enacted tests still in use which were specifically designed to prevent Negroes from voting. Typically, they made the ability to read and write a registration qualification and also required completion of a registration form. These laws were based on the fact that as of 1890 in each of the named States, more than two-thirds of the adult Negroes were illiterate while less than one-quarter of the adult whites were unable to read or write. At the same time, alternate tests were prescribed in all of the named States to assure that white illiterates would not be deprived of the franchise. These included grandfather clauses, property qualifications, “good character” tests, and the requirement that registrants “understand” or “interpret” certain matter.
The course of subsequent Fifteenth Amendment litigation in this Court demonstrates the variety and persistence of these and similar institutions designed to deprive Negroes of the right to vote. Grandfather clauses were invalidated in Guinn v. United States, 238 U. S. 347, and Myers v. Anderson, 238 U. S. 368. Procedural hurdles were struck down in Lane v. Wilson, 307 U. S. 268. The white primary was outlawed in Smith v. Allwright, 321 U. S. 649, and Terry v. Adams, 345 U. S. 461. Improper challenges were nullified in United States v. Thomas, 362 U. S. 58. Racial gerrymandering was forbidden by Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S. 339. Finally, discriminatory application of voting tests was condemned in Schnell v. Davis, 336 U. S. 933; Alabama v. United States, 371 U. S. 37; and Louisiana v. United States, 380 U. S. 145.
According to the evidence in recent Justice Department voting suits, the latter stratagem is now the principal method used to bar Negroes from the polls. Discriminatory administration of voting qualifications has been found in all eight Alabama cases, in all nine Louisiana cases, and in all nine Mississippi cases which have gone to final judgment. Moreover, in almost all of these cases, the courts have held that the discrimination was pursuant to a widespread “pattern or practice.” White applicants for registration have often been excused altogether from the literacy and understanding tests or have been given easy versions, have received extensive help from voting officials, and have been registered despite serious errors in their answers. Negroes, on the other hand, have typically been required to pass difficult versions of all the tests, without any outside assistance and without the slightest error. The good-morals requirement is so vague and subjective that it has constituted an open invitation to abuse at the hands of voting officials. Negroes obliged to obtain vouchers from registered voters have found it virtually impossible to comply in areas where almost no Negroes are on the rolls.
In recent years, Congress has repeatedly tried to cope with the problem by facilitating case-by-case litigation against voting discrimination. The Civil Rights Act of 1957 authorized the Attorney General to seek injunctions against public and private interference with the right to vote on racial grounds. Perfecting amendments in the Civil Rights Act of 1960 permitted the joinder of States as parties defendant, gave the Attorney General access to local voting records, and authorized courts to register voters in areas of systematic discrimination.Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 expedited the hearing of voting cases before three-judge courts and outlawed some of the tactics used to disqualify Negroes from voting in federal elections.
Despite the earnest efforts of the Justice Department and of many federal judges, these new laws have done little to cure the problem of voting discrimination. According to estimates by the Attorney General during hearings on the Act, registration of voting-age Negroes in Alabama rose only from 14.2% to 19.4% between 1958 and 1964; in Louisiana it barely inched ahead from 31.7% to 31.8% between 1956 and 1965; and in Mississippi it increased only from 4.4% to 6.4% between 1954 and 1964. In each instance, registration of voting-age whites ran roughly 50 percentage points or more ahead of Negro registration.
The previous legislation has proved ineffective for a number of reasons. Voting suits are unusually onerous to prepare, sometimes requiring as many as 6,000 man-hours spent combing through registration records in preparation for trial. Litigation has been exceedingly slow, in part because of the ample opportunities for delay afforded voting officials and others involved in the proceedings. Even when favorable decisions have finally been obtained, some of the States affected have merely switched to discriminatory devices not covered by the federal decrees or have enacted difficult new tests designed to prolong the existing disparity between white and Negro registration. Alternatively, certain local officials have defied and evaded court orders or have simply closed their registration offices to freeze the voting rolls. The provision of the 1960 law authorizing registration by federal officers has had little impact on local maladministration because of its procedural complexities.
During the hearings and debates on the Act, Selma, Alabama, was repeatedly referred to as the pre-eminent example of the ineffectiveness of existing legislation. In Dallas County, of which Selma is the seat, there were four years of litigation by the Justice Department and two findings by the federal courts of widespread voting discrimination. Yet in those four years, Negro registration rose only from 156 to 383, although there are approximately 15,000 Negroes of voting age in the county. Any possibility that these figures were attributable to political apathy was dispelled by the protest demonstrations in Selma in the early months of 1965. The House Committee on the Judiciary summed up the reaction of Congress to these developments in the following words:
“The litigation in Dallas County took more than 4 years to open the door to the exercise of constitutional rights conferred almost a century ago. The problem on a national scale is that the difficulties experienced in suits in Dallas County have been encountered over and over again under existing voting laws. Four years is too long. The burden is too heavy — the wrong to our citizens is too serious — the damage to our national conscience is too great not to adopt more effective measures than exist today.
“Such is the essential justification for the pending bill.” House Report 11.
II.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 reflects Congress’ firm intention to rid the country of racial discrimination in voting. The heart of the Act is a complex scheme of stringent remedies aimed at areas where voting discrimination has been most flagrant. Section 4 (a)-(d) lays down a formula defining the States and political subdivisions to which these new remedies apply. The first of the remedies, contained in § 4 (a), is the suspension of literacy tests and similar voting qualifications for a period of five years from the last occurrence of substantial voting discrimination. Section 5 prescribes a second remedy, the suspension of all new voting regulations pending review by federal authorities to determine whether their use would perpetuate voting discrimination. The third remedy, covered in §§ 6 (b), 7, 9, and 13 (a), is the assignment of federal examiners on certification by the Attorney General to list qualified applicants who are thereafter entitled to vote in all elections.
Other provisions of the Act prescribe subsidiary cures for persistent voting discrimination. Section 8 authorizes the appointment of federal poll-watchers in places to which federal examiners have already been assigned. Section 10 (d) excuses those made eligible to vote in sections of the country covered by § 4 (b) of the Act from paying accumulated past poll taxes for state and local elections. Section 12 (e) provides for balloting by persons denied access to the polls in areas where federal examiners have been appointed.
The remaining remedial portions of the Act are aimed at voting discrimination in any area of the country where it may occur. Section 2 broadly prohibits the use of voting rules to abridge exercise of the franchise on racial grounds. Sections 3, 6 (a), and 13 (b) strengthen existing procedures for attacking voting discrimination by means of litigation. Section 4 (e) excuses citizens educated in American schools conducted in a foreign language from passing English-language literacy tests. Section 10 (a)-(c) facilitates constitutional litigation challenging the imposition of all poll taxes for state and local elections. Sections 11 and 12 (a)-(d) authorize civil and criminal sanctions against interference with the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act.
At the outset, we emphasize that only some of the many portions of the Act are properly before us. South Carolina has not challenged §§ 2, 3, 4 (e), 6 (a), 8, 10, 12 (d) and (e), 13 (b), and other miscellaneous provisions having nothing to do with this lawsuit. Judicial review of these sections must await subsequent litigation. In addition, we find that South Carolina’s attack on §§ 11 and 12 (a)-(c) is premature. No person has yet been subjected to, or even threatened with, the criminal sanctions which these sections of the Act authorize. See United States v. Baines, 362 U. S. 17, 20-24. Consequently, the only sections of the Act to be reviewed at this time are §§ 4 (a)-(d), 5, 6 (b), 7, 9, 13 (a), and certain procedural portions of § 14, all of which are presently in actual operation in South Carolina. We turn now to a detailed description of these provisions and their present status.
Coverage formula.
The remedial sections of the Act assailed by South Carolina automatically apply to any State; or to any separate political subdivision such as a county or parish, for which two findings have been made: (1) the Attorney General has determined that on November 1, 1964, it maintained a “test or device,” and (2) the Director of the Census has determined that less than 50% of its voting-age residents were registered on November 1,1964, or voted in the presidential election of November 1964. These findings are not reviewable in any court and are final upon publication in the Federal Register. § 4 (b). As used throughout the Act, the phrase “test or device” means any requirement that a registrant or voter must “(1) demonstrate the ability to read, write, understand, or interpret any matter, (2) demonstrate any educational achievement or his knowledge of any particular subject, (3) possess good moral character, or (4) prove his qualifications by the voucher of registered voters or members of any other class.” § 4 (c).
Statutory coverage of a State or political subdivision under § 4 (b) is terminated if the area obtains a declaratory judgment from the District Court for the District of Columbia, determining that tests and devices have not been used during the preceding five years to abridge the franchise on racial grounds. The Attorney General shall consent to entry of the judgment if he has no reason to believe that the facts are otherwise. §4 (a). For the purposes of this section, tests and devices are not deemed to have been used in a forbidden manner if the incidents of discrimination are few in number and have been promptly corrected, if their continuing effects have been abated, and if they are unlikely to recur in the future. § 4 (d). On the other hand, no area may obtain a declaratory judgment for five years after the final decision of a federal court (other than the denial of a judgment under this section of the Act), determining that discrimination through the use of tests or devices has occurred anywhere in the State or political subdivision. These declaratory judgment actions are to be heard by a three-judge panel, with direct appeal to this Court. §4 (a).
South Carolina was brought within the coverage formula of the Act on August 7, 1965, pursuant to appropriate administrative determinations which have not been challenged in this proceeding. On the same day, coverage was also extended to Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Virginia, 26 counties in North Carolina, and one county in Arizona. Two more counties in Arizona, one county in Hawaii, and one county in Idaho were added to the list on November 19, 1965. Thus far Alaska, the three Arizona counties, and the single county in Idaho have asked the District Court for the District of Columbia to grant a declaratory judgment terminating statutory coverage.
Suspension of tests.
In a State or political subdivision covered by § 4 (b) of the Act, no person may be denied the right to vote in any election because of his failure to comply with a “test or device.” §4 (a).
On account of this provision, South Carolina is temporarily barred from enforcing the portion of its voting laws which requires every applicant for registration to show that he:
“Can both read and write any section of [the State] Constitution submitted to [him] by the registration officer or can show that he owns, and has paid all taxes collectible during the previous year on, property in this State assessed at three hundred dollars or more.” S. C. Code Ann. §23-62 (4) (1965 Supp.).
The Attorney General has determined that the property qualification is inseparable from the literacy test, and South Carolina makes no objection to this finding. Similar tests and devices have been temporarily suspended in the other sections of the country listed above.
Review of new rules.
In a State or political subdivision covered by § 4 (b) of the Act, no person may be denied the right to vote in any election because of his failure to comply with a voting qualification or procedure different from those in force on November 1, 1964. This suspension of new rules is terminated, however, under either of the following circumstances: (1) if the area has submitted the rules to the Attorney General, and he has not interposed an objection within 60 days, or (2) if the area has obtained a declaratory judgment from the District Court for the District of Columbia, determining that the rules will not abridge the franchise on racial grounds. These declaratory judgment actions are to be heard by a three-judge panel, with direct appeal to this Court. § 5.
South Carolina altered its voting laws in 1965 to extend the closing hour at polling places from 6 p. m. to 7 p. m. The State has not sought judicial review of this change in the District Court for the District of Columbia, nor has it submitted the new rule to the Attorney General for his scrutiny, although at our hearing the Attorney General announced that he does not challenge the amendment. There are indications in the record that other sections of the country listed above have also altered their voting laws since November 1, 1964.
Federal examiners.
In any political subdivision covered by § 4 (b) of the Act, the Civil Service Commission shall appoint voting examiners whenever the Attorney General certifies either of the following facts: (1) that he has received meritorious written complaints from at least 20 residents alleging that they have been disenfranchised under color of law because of their race, or (2) that the appointment of examiners is otherwise necessary to effectuate the guarantees of the Fifteenth Amendment. In making the latter determination, the Attorney General must consider, among other factors, whether the registration ratio of non-whites to whites seems reasonably attributable to racial discrimination, or whether there is substantial evidence of good-faith efforts to comply with the Fifteenth Amendment. §6 (b). These certifications are not reviewable in any court and are effective upon publication in the Federal Register. § 4 (b).
The examiners who have been appointed are to test the voting qualifications of applicants according to regulations of the Civil Service Commission prescribing times, places, procedures, and forms. §§ 7 (a) and 9 (b). Any person who meets the voting requirements of state law, insofar as these have not been suspended by the Act, must promptly be placed on a list of eligible voters. Examiners are to transmit their lists at least once a month to the appropriate state or local officials, who in turn are required to place the listed names on the official voting rolls. Any person listed by an examiner is entitled to vote in all elections held more than 45 days after his name has been transmitted. § 7 (b).
A person shall be removed from the voting list by an examiner if he has lost his eligibility under valid state law, or if he has been successfully challenged through the procedure prescribed in § 9 (a) of the Act. § 7 (d). The challenge must be filed at the office within the State designated by the Civil Service Commission; must be submitted within 10 days after the listing is made available for public inspection; must be supported by the affidavits of at least two people having personal knowledge of the relevant facts; and must be served on the person challenged by mail or at his residence. A hearing officer appointed by the Civil Service Commission shall hear the challenge and render a decision within 15 days after the challenge is filed. A petition for review of the hearing officer's decision must be submitted within an additional 15 days after service of the decision on the person seeking review. The court of appeals for the circuit in which the person challenged resides is to hear the petition and affirm the hearing officer’s decision unless it is clearly erroneous. Any person listed by an examiner is entitled to vote pending a final decision of the hearing officer or the court. § 9 (a).
The listing procedures in a political subdivision. are terminated under either of the following circumstances: (1) if the Attorney General informs the Civil Service Commission that all persons listed by examiners have been placed on the official voting rolls, and that there is no longer reasonable cause to fear abridgment of the franchise on racial grounds, or (2) if the political subdivision has obtained a declaratory judgment from the District Court for the District of Columbia, ascertaining the same facts which govern termination by the Attorney General, and the Director of the Census has determined that more than 50% of the non-white residents of voting-age are registered to vote. A political subdivision may petition the Attorney General to terminate listing procedures or to authorize the necessary census, and the District Court itself shall request the census if the Attorney General’s refusal to do so is arbitrary or unreasonable. § 13 (a). The determinations by the Director of the Census are not reviewable in any court and are final upon publication in the Federal Register. § 4 (b).
On October 30, 1965, the Attorney General certified the need for federal examiners in two South Carolina counties, and examiners appointed by the Civil Service Commission have been serving there since November 8, 1965. Examiners have also been assigned to 11 counties in Alabama, five parishes in Louisiana, and 19 counties in Mississippi. The examiners are listing people found eligible to vote, and the challenge procedure has been employed extensively. No political subdivision has yet sought to have federal examiners withdrawn through the Attorney General or the District Court for the District of Columbia.
III.
These provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 are challenged on the fundamental ground that they exceed the powers of Congress and encroach on an area reserved to the States by the Constitution. South Carolina and certain of the amici curiae also attack specific sections of the Act for more particular reasons. They argue that the coverage formula prescribed in § 4 (a)-(d) violates the principle of the equality of States, denies due process by employing an invalid presumption and by barring judicial review of administrative findings, constitutes a forbidden bill of attainder, and impairs the separation of powers by adjudicating guilt through legislation. They claim that the review of new voting rules required in § 5 infringes Article III by directing the District Court to issue advisory opinions. They contend that the assignment of federal examiners authorized in § 6 (b) abridges due process by precluding judicial review of administrative findings and impairs the separation of powers by giving the Attorney General judicial functions; also that the challenge procedure prescribed in § 9 denies due process on account of its speed. Finally, South Carolina and certain of the amici curiae maintain that §§ 4 (a) and 5, buttressed by § 14 (b) of the Act, abridge due process by limiting litigation to a distant forum.
Some of these contentions may be dismissed at the outset. The word “person” in the context of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment cannot, by any reasonable mode of interpretation, be expanded to encompass the States of the Union, and to our knowledge this has never been done by any court. See International Shoe Co. v. Cocreham, 246 La. 244, 266, 164 So. 2d 314, 322, n. 5; cf. United States v. City of Jackson, 318 F. 2d 1, 8 (C. A. 5th Cir.). Likewise, courts have consistently regarded the Bill of Attainder Clause of Article I and the principle of the separation of powers only as protections for individual persons and private groups, those who are peculiarly vulnerable to nonjudicial determinations of guilt. See United States v. Brown, 381 U. S. 437; Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333. Nor does a State have standing as the parent of its citizens to invoke these constitutional provisions against the Federal Government, the ultimate parens patriae of every American citizen. Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447, 485-486; Florida v. Mellon, 273 U. S. 12, 18. The objections to the Act which are raised under these provisions may therefore be considered only as additional aspects of the basic question presented by the case: Has Congress exercised its powers under the Fifteenth Amendment in an appropriate manner with relation to the States?
The ground rules for resolving this question are clear. The language and purpose of the Fifteenth Amendment, the prior decisions construing its several provisions, and the general doctrines of constitutional interpretation, all point to one fundamental principle. As against the reserved powers of the States, Congress may use any rational means to effectuate the constitutional prohibition of racial discrimination in voting. Cf. our rulings last Term, sustaining Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U. S. 241, 258-259, 261-262; and Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U. S. 294, 303-304. We turn now to a more detailed description of the standards which govern our review of the Act.
Section 1 of the Fifteenth Amendment declares that “[t]he right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” This declaration has always been treated as self-executing and has repeatedly been construed, without further legislative specification, to invalidate state voting qualifications or procedures which are discriminatory on their face or in practice. See Neal v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 370; Guinn v. United States, 238 U. S. 347; Myers v. Anderson, 238 U. S. 368; Lane v. Wilson, 307 U. S. 268; Smith v. Allwright, 321 U. S. 649; Schnell v. Davis, 336 U. S. 933; Terry v. Adams, 345 U. S. 461; United States v. Thomas, 362 U. S. 58; Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S. 339; Alabama v. United States, 371 U. S. 37; Louisiana v. United States, 380 U. S. 145. These decisions have been rendered with full respect for the general rule, reiterated last Term in Carrington v. Rash, 380 U. S. 89, 91, that States “have broad powers to determine the conditions under which the right of suffrage may be exercised.” The gist of the matter is that the Fifteenth Amendment supersedes contrary exertions of state power. “When a State exercises power wholly within the domain of state interest, it is insulated from federal judicial review. But such insulation is not carried over when state power is used as an instrument for circumventing a federally protected right.” Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S., at 347.
South Carolina contends that the cases cited above are precedents only for the authority of the judiciary to strike down state statutes and procedures — that to allow an exercise of this authority by Congress would be to rob the courts of their rightful constitutional role. On the contrary, § 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment expressly declares that “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” By adding this authorization, the Framers indicated that Congress was to be chiefly responsible for implementing the rights created in § 1. “It is the power of Congress which has been enlarged. Congress is authorized to enforce the prohibitions by appropriate legislation. Some legislation is contemplated to make the [Civil War] amendments fully effective.” Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 345. Accordingly, in addition to the courts, Congress has full remedial powers to effectuate the constitutional prohibition against racial discrimination in voting.
Congress has repeatedly exercised these powers in the past, and its enactments have repeatedly been upheld. For recent examples, see the Civil Rights Act of 1957, which was sustained in United States v. Raines, 362 U. S. 17; United States v. Thomas, supra; and Hannah v. Larche, 363 U. S. 420; and the Civil Rights Act of 1960, which was upheld in Alabama v. United States, supra; Louisiana v. United States, supra; and United States v. Mississippi, 380 U. S. 128. On the rare occasions when the Court has found an unconstitutional exercise of these powers, in its opinion Congress had attacked evils not comprehended by the Fifteenth Amendment. See United States v. Reese, 92 U. S. 214; James v. Bowman, 190 U. S. 127.
The basic test to be applied in a case involving § 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment is the same as in all cases concerning the express powers of Congress with relation to the reserved powers of the States. Chief Justice Marshall laid down the classic formulation, 50 years before the Fifteenth Amendment was ratified:
“Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.” McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 421.
The Court has subsequently echoed his language in describing each of the Civil War Amendments:
“Whatever legislation is appropriate, that is, adapted to carry out the objects the amendments have in view, whatever tends to enforce submission to the prohibitions they contain, and to secure to all persons the enjoyment of perfect equality of civil rights and the equal protection of the laws against State denial or invasion, if not prohibited, is brought within the domain of congressional power.” Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S., at 345-346.
This language was again employed, nearly 50 years later, with reference to Congress’ related authority under § 2 of the Eighteenth Amendment. James Everard’s Breweries v. Day, 265 U. S. 545, 558-559.
We therefore reject South Carolina’s argument that Congress may appropriately do no more than to forbid violations of the Fifteenth Amendment in general terms— that the task of fashioning specific remedies or of applying them to particular localities must necessarily be left entirely to the courts. Congress is not circumscribed by any such artificial rules under § 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment. In the oft-repeated words of Chief Justice Marshall, referring to another specific legislative authorization in the Constitution, “This power, like all others vested in Congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are prescribed in the constitution.” Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 196.
IY.
Congress exercised its authority under the Fifteenth Amendment in an inventive manner when it enacted the Voting Rights Act of 1965. First: The measure prescribes remedies for voting discrimination which go into effect without any need for prior adjudication. This was clearly a legitimate response to the problem, for which there is ample precedent under other constitutional provisions. See Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U. S. 294, 302-304; United States v. Darby, 312 U. S. 100, 120-121. Congress had found that case-by-case litigation was inadequate to combat widespread and persistent discrimination in voting, because of the inordinate amount of time and energy required to overcome the obstructionist tactics invariably encountered in these lawsuits. After enduring nearly a century of systematic resistance to the Fifteenth Amendment, Congress might well decide to shift the advantage of time and inertia from the perpetrators of the evil to its victims. The question remains, of course, whether the specific remedies prescribed in the Act were an appropriate means of combatting the evil, and to this question we shall presently address ourselves.
Second: The Act intentionally confines these remedies to a small number of States and political subdivisions which in most instances were familiar to Congress by name. This, too, was a permissible method of dealing with the problem. Congress had learned that substantial voting discrimination presently occurs in certain sections of the country, and it knew no way of accurately forecasting whether the evil might spread elsewhere in the future. In acceptable legislative fashion, Congress chose to limit its attention to the geographic areas where immediate action seemed necessary. See McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U. S. 420, 427; Salsburg v. Maryland, 346 U. S. 545, 550-554. The doctrine of the equality of States, invoked by South Carolina, does not bar this approach, for that doctrine applies only to the terms upon which States are admitted to the Union, and not to the remedies for local evils which have subsequently appeared. See Coyle v. Smith, 221 U. S. 559, and cases cited therein.
Coverage formula.
We now consider the related question of whether the specific States and political subdivisions within § 4 (b) of the Act were an appropriate target for the new remedies. South Carolina contends that the coverage formula is aw7kwardly designed in a number of respects and that it disregards various local conditions which have nothing to do with racial discrimination. These arguments, however, are largely beside the point. Congress began work with reliable evidence of actual voting discrimination in a great majority of the States and political subdivisions affected by the new remedies of the Act. The formula eventually evolved to describe these areas was relevant to the problem of voting discrimination, and Congress was therefore entitled to infer a significant danger of the evil in the few remaining States and political subdivisions covered by § 4 (b) of the Act. No more was required to justify the application to these areas of Congress’ express powers under the Fifteenth Amendment. Cf. North American Co. v. S. E. C., 327 U. S. 686, 710-711; Assigned Car Cases, 274 U. S. 564, 582-583.
To be specific, the new remedies of the Act are imposed on three States — Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi— in which federal courts have repeatedly found substantial voting discrimination. Section 4 (b) of the Act also embraces two other States — Georgia
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted the writ in this case to consider petitioner’s claim that a statement made by him to police under circumstances rendering it inadmissible to establish the prosecution’s case in chief under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), may not be used to impeach his credibility.
The State of New York charged petitioner in a two-count indictment with twice selling heroin to an undercover police officer. At a subsequent jury trial the officer was the State’s chief witness, and he testified as to details of the two sales. A second officer verified collateral details of the sales, and a third offered testimony about the chemical analysis of the heroin.
Petitioner took the stand in his own defense. He admitted knowing the undercover police officer but denied a sale on January 4, 1966. He admitted making a sale of contents of a glassine bag to the officer on January 6 but claimed it was baking powder and part of a scheme to defraud the purchaser.
On cross-examination petitioner was asked seriatim whether he had made specified statements to the police immediately following his arrest on January 7 — statements that partially contradicted petitioner’s direct testimony at trial. In response to the cross-examination, petitioner testified that he could not remember virtually any of the questions or answers recited by the prosecutor. At the request of petitioner’s counsel the written statement from which the prosecutor had read questions and answers in his impeaching process was placed in the record for possible use on appeal; the statement was not shown to the jury.
The trial judge instructed the jury that the statements attributed to petitioner by the prosecution could be considered only in passing on petitioner’s credibility and not as evidence of guilt. In closing summations both counsel argued the substance of the impeaching statements. The jury then found petitioner guilty on the second count of the indictment. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed in a per curiam opinion, 25 N. Y. 2d 175, 250 N. E. 2d 349 (1969).
At trial the prosecution made no effort in its case in chief to use the statements allegedly made by petitioner, conceding that they were inadmissible under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966). The transcript of the interrogation used in the impeachment, but not given to the jury, shows that no warning of a right to appointed counsel was given before questions were put to petitioner when he was taken into custody. Petitioner makes no claim that the statements made to the police were coerced or involuntary.
Some comments in the Miranda opinion can indeed be read as indicating a bar to use of an uncounseled statement for any purpose, but discussion of that issue was not at all necessary to the Court’s holding and cannot be regarded as controlling. Miranda barred the prosecution from making its case with statements of an accused made while in custody prior to having or effectively waiving counsel. It does not follow from Miranda that evidence inadmissible against an accused in the prosecution’s case in chief is barred for all purposes, provided of course that the trustworthiness of the evidence satisfies legal standards.
In Walder v. United States, 347 U. S. 62 (1954), the Court permitted physical evidence, inadmissible in the case in chief, to be used for impeachment purposes.
“It is one thing to say that the Government cannot make an affirmative use of evidence unlawfully obtained. It is quite another to say that the defendant can turn the illegal method by which evidence in the Government’s possession was obtained to his own advantage, and provide himself with a shield against contradiction of his untruths. Such an extension of the Weeks doctrine would be a perversion of the Fourth Amendment.
“[T]here is hardly justification for letting the defendant affirmatively resort to perjurious testimony in reliance on the Government’s disability to challenge his credibility.” 347 U. S., at 65.
It is true that Walder was impeached as to collateral matters included in his direct examination, whereas petitioner here was impeached as to testimony bearing more directly on the crimes charged. We are not persuaded that there is a difference in principle that warrants a result different from that reached by the Court in Walder. Petitioner's testimony in his own behalf concerning the events of January 7 contrasted sharply with what he told the police shortly after his arrest. The impeachment process here undoubtedly provided valuable aid to the jury in assessing petitioner’s credibility, and the benefits of this process should not be lost, in our view, because of the speculative possibility that impermissible police conduct will be encouraged thereby. Assuming that the exclusionary rule has a deterrent effect on proscribed police conduct, sufficient deterrence flows when the evidence in question is made unavailable to the prosecution in its case in chief.
Every criminal defendant is privileged to testify in his own defense, or to refuse to do so. But that privilege cannot be construed to include the right to commit perjury. See United States v. Knox, 396 U. S. 77 (1969); cf. Dennis v. United States, 384 U. S. 855 (1966). Having voluntarily taken the stand, petitioner was under an obligation to speak truthfully and accurately, and the prosecution here did no more than utilize the traditional truth-testing devices of the adversary process. Had inconsistent statements been made by the accused to some third person, it could hardly be contended that the conflict could not be laid before the jury by way of cross-examination and impeachment.
The shield provided by Miranda cannot be perverted into a license to use perjury by way of a defense, free from the risk of confrontation with prior inconsistent utterances. We hold, therefore, that petitioner’s credibility was appropriately impeached by use of his earlier conflicting statements.
Affirmed.
Me. Justice Black dissents.
No agreement was reached as to the first count. That count was later dropped by the State.
If, for example, an accused confessed fully to a homicide and led the police to the body of the victim under circumstances making his confession inadmissible, the petitioner would have us allow that accused to take the stand and blandly deny every fact disclosed to the police or discovered as a “fruit” of his confession, free from confrontation with his prior statements and acts. The voluntariness of the confession would, on this thesis, be totally irrelevant. We reject such an extravagant extension of the Constitution. Compare Killough v. United States, 114 U. S. App. D. C. 305, 315 F. 2d 241 (1962).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We are confronted again with the issue of a state regulation requiring an interstate pipeline to purchase gas from all the parties owning interests in a common gas pool. The purchases would be in proportion to the owners’ respective interests in the pool, and would be compelled even though the pipeline has pre-existing contracts with less than all of the pool’s owners.
This Court, in Northern Natural Gas Co. v. State Corporation Comm’n of Kansas, 372 U. S. 84 (1963), struck down, on pre-emption grounds, a virtually identical regulation. In the present case, however, the Supreme Court of Mississippi ruled that the subsequently enacted Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA), 92 Stat. 3351, 15 U. S. C. §3301 et seq., effectively nullified Northern Natural by vesting regulatory power in the States over the wellhead sale of gas. The Mississippi Supreme Court went on to hold that the Mississippi regulation did not impermissibly burden interstate commerce. Because of the importance of the issues in the functioning of the interstate market in natural gas, we noted probable jurisdiction. 470 U. S. 1083 (1985).
I
The Harper Sand gas pool lies in Marion County in southern Mississippi. Harper gas is classified as “high-cost natural gas” under NGPA’s § 107(c)(1), 15 U. S. C. § 3317(c)(1), because it is taken from a depth of more than 15,000 feet. At the time of the proceedings before appellee State Oil and Gas Board of Mississippi, six separate wells drew gas from the pool. A recognized property of a common pool is that, as gas is drawn up through one well, the pressure surrounding that well is reduced and other gas flows towards the area of the producing well. Thus, one well can drain an entire pool, even if the gas in the pool is owned by several different owners. The interests of these other owners often are referred to as “correlative rights.” See, e. g., Miss. Code Ann. § 53-1-1 (1972 and Supp. 1985).
Some owners of interests in the Harper Sand pool, such as appellee Getty Oil Co., actually drill and operate gas wells. Others, such as appellee Coastal Exploration, Inc., own smaller working interests in various wells. Normally, these lesser owners rely on the well operators to arrange the sales of their shares of the production, see App. 26, although some nonoperator owners contract directly either with the pipeline that purchases the operator’s gas or with other customers.
Appellant Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation (Transco) operates a natural gas pipeline that transports gas from fields in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi for resale to customers throughout the Northeast. Beginning in 1978, Transco entered into 35 long-term contracts with Getty and two other operators, Florida Exploration Co. and Tomlinson Interests, Inc., to purchase gas produced from the Harper Sand pool. In line with prevailing industry practice, the contracts contained “take-or-pay” provisions. These essentially required Transco either to accept currently a certain percentage of the gas each well was capable of producing, or to pay the contract price for that gas with a right to take delivery at some later time, usually limited in duration. Take-or-pay provisions enable sellers to avoid fluctuations in cash flow and are therefore thought to encourage investments in well development. See Pierce, Natural Gas Regulation, Deregulation, and Contracts, 68 Va. L. Rev. 63, 77-79 (1982).
Transco entered into these contracts during a period of national gas shortage. Transco’s contracts with Getty and Tomlinson obligated it to buy only Getty’s and Tomlinson’s own shares of the gas produced by the wells they operated, while its contracts with Florida Exploration required it to take virtually all the gas Florida Exploration’s wells produced, regardless of its ownership. See App. 107. But demand was sufficiently high that Transco also purchased, on a noncontract basis, the production shares of smaller owners, such as Coastal, in the Getty and Tomlinson wells. Id., at 155. In the spring of 1982, however, consumer demand for gas dropped significantly, and Transco began to have difficulty selling its gas. It therefore announced in May 1982 that it would no longer purchase gas from owners with whom it had not actually contracted. See, e. g., id., at 41-42. Transco refused Coastal’s request that it be allowed to ratify Getty’s contract, and made a counteroffer, which Coastal refused, either to purchase Coastal’s gas at a significantly lower price than it was obligated to pay under its existing contracts or to transport Coastal’s gas to other customers if Coastal arranged such sales. See id., at 66-69. Fifty-five other noncontract owners of Harper gas, however, did accept such offers from Transco. See 457 So. 2d 1298, 1309 (Miss. 1984).
Getty and Tomlinson cut back production so that their wells produced only that amount of gas equal to their ownership interests in the maximum flow. The immediate economic effect of the cutback was to deprive Coastal of revenue, because none of its share of the Harper gas was being produced. The ultimate geological effect, however, is that gas will flow from the Getty-Tomlinson areas of the field, which are producing at less than capacity, to the Florida Exploration areas; gas owned by interests that produce through Getty’s and Tomlinson’s wells thus may be siphoned away. Moreover, because of the decrease in pressure, gas left in the ground, such as Coastal’s gas, may become more costly to recover and therefore its value at the wellhead may decline.
I — I h — I
On July 29, 1982, Coastal filed a petition with appellee State Oil and Gas Board of Mississippi, asking the Board to enforce its Statewide Rule 48, a “ratable-take” requirement. Rule 48 provides:
“Each person now or hereafter engaged in the business of purchasing oil or gas from owners, operators, or producers shall purchase without discrimination in favor of one owner, operator, or producer against another in the same common source of supply.”
Rule 48 never before had been employed to require a pipeline actually to purchase noncontract gas; rather, its sole purpose appears to have been to prevent drainage, that is, to prevent a buyer from contracting with one seller and then draining a common pool of all its gas. See 457 So. 2d, at 1306. The Gas Board conducted a 3-day evidentiary proceeding. It found Transco in violation of Rule 48, and, by its Order No. 409-82, filed Oct. 13, 1982, ordered Transco to start taking gas “ratably” (i. e., in proportion to the various owners’ shares) from the Harper Sand pool, and to purchase the gas under nondiscriminatory price and take-or-pay conditions.
Transco appealed the Gas Board’s ruling to the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Miss. In the parts of its opinion relevant to this appeal, the Circuit Court held that the Gas Board’s authority was not preempted by either the Natural Gas Act of 1938 (NGA), eh. 556, 52 Stat. 821, 15 U. S. C. §717 et seq., or the NGPA; that the NGPA effectively overruled Northern Natural; and that the Gas Board’s order did not run afoul of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.
The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed that portion of the Circuit Court’s judgment. 457 So. 2d 1298 (1984). With respect to Transco’s pre-emption claim, the court recognized that, prior to 1978, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and its predecessor, the Federal Power Commission, possessed “plenary authority to regulate the sale and transportation of natural gas in interstate commerce.” Id., at 1314. Under the interpretation of that authority in Northern Natural, where a Kansas ratable-take order was ruled invalid because the order “invade[d] the exclusive jurisdiction which the Natural Gas Act has conferred upon the Federal Power Commission,” 372 U. S., at 89, Mississippi’s “authority to enforce Rule 48 requiring ratable taking had been effectively suspended — preempted, if you will, and any orders such as Order No. 409-82 would have been wholly unenforceable.” 457 So. 2d, at 1314. But the court went on to conclude that the enactment of the NGPA in 1978 removed FERC’s jurisdiction over “high-cost” gas (the type produced from the Harper Sand pool). Under § 601(a)(1) of the NGPA, “the Natural Gas Act of 1938 (NGA) and FERC’s jurisdiction under the Act never apply to deregulated gas” (emphasis added), 457 So. 2d, at 1316, and “[t]hat message is decisive of the preemption issue in this case.” Ibid.
The court also found no implicit pre-emption of Rule 48. Transco’s compliance with the Rule could not bring it into conflict with any of FERC’s still-existing powers over the gas industry. The court noted that, under Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corp. v. Arkansas Public Service Comm’n, 461 U. S. 375, 384 (1983), a federal determination that deregulation was appropriate was entitled to as much weight in determining pre-emption as a federal decision to regulate actively. Although the NGPA stemmed from Congress’ desire to deregulate the gas industry, the court found that “[hjowever consistent a continued proscription on state regulation might have been with the theoretical underpinnings of deregulation, the Congress in NGPA in 1978 did not ban state regulation of deregulated gas.” 457 So. 2d, at 1318.
In addressing the Commerce Clause issue, the court relied on the balancing test set out in Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U. S. 137 (1970): when a state law “regulates evenhandedly to effectuate a legitimate local public interest, and its effects on interstate commerce are only incidental, it will be upheld unless the burden imposed on such commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.” Id., at 142. In weighing the benefit against the burden, a reviewing court should consider whether the local interest “could be promoted as well with a lesser impact on interstate activities.” Ibid. The court found that Rule 48 had a legitimate local purpose — the prevention of unfair drainage from commonly owned gas pools. It identified the principal burden on interstate commerce as higher prices for the ultimate consumers of natural gas. But, under Cities Service Gas Co. v. Peerless Oil & Gas Co., 340 U. S. 179, 186-187 (1950), higher prices do not render a state regulation impermissible per se under the Commerce Clause. Also, Congress expressed a clear intent in enacting the NGPA that “all reasonable costs of production of natural gas shall be borne ultimately by the consumer. . . . Congress within the scope of its power under the affirmative Commerce Clause has expressly authorized such increases.” 457 So. 2d, at 1321. Transco had identified one other potential burden on interstate commerce: Rule 48 would require it to take more gas from Mississippi’s fields than would otherwise be the case, thereby leading Transco to reduce its purchases from Louisiana and Texas. But the Mississippi court rejected this argument, noting both that Texas and Louisiana had their own ratable-take regulations, which presumably would protect their producers, and that the actual cause of any such effect was Transco’s imprudent entry into take-or-pay contracts, rather than the State’s ratable-take requirement. Transco knew of Rule 48’s existence when it entered into its various contracts and should have foreseen the risk that it would be required to purchase smaller owners’ shares. Moreover, since Transco was permitted to pass along its increased costs, the consumer ultimately would bear this burden, which was “simply one inevitable consequence of the free market policies of the era of deregulation with respect to which Transco is vested by the negative Commerce Clause with no right to complain.” Id., at 1322.
Finally, the court rejected Transco’s argument that the State could have served the same local public interest through a ratable-production order rather than through a ratable-take order. It held that it need not even consider whether less burdensome alternatives to the ratable-take order existed, because Transco had failed to meet the threshold requirement of demonstrating an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce.
Ill
If the Gas Board’s action were analyzed under the standard used in Northern Natural, it clearly would be pre-empted. Whether that decision governs this case depends on whether Congress, in enacting the NGPA, altered those characteristics of the federal regulatory scheme which provided the basis in Northern Natural for a finding of pre-emption.
In that case this Court considered whether the “comprehensive scheme of federal regulation” that Congress enacted in the NGA pre-empted a Kansas ratable-take order. 372 U. S., at 91. • Northern Natural Gas Company had a take-or-pay contract with Republic Natural Gas Company to purchase all the gas Republic could produce from its wells in the Hugoton Field. Northern also had contracts with other producers to buy their production, but those contracts required it to purchase their gas only to the extent that its requirements could not be satisfied by Republic. Id., at 87. Northern historically had taken ratably from all Hugoton wells, but, starting in 1958, it no longer needed all the gas the wells in the field were capable of producing. It therefore reduced its purchases from the other wells, causing drainage toward Republic’s wells. The Kansas Corporation Commission, which previously had imposed a ratable-production order on the Hugoton producers, then issued a ratable-take order requiring Northern to “take gas from Republic wells in no higher proportion to the allowables than from the wells of the other producers.” Id., at 88.
Kansas argued that its order represented a permissible attempt to protect the correlative rights of the other producers. The Court rejected this contention. Section 1(b) of the NGA, 15 U. S. C. § 717(b), provided that the Act’s provisions “shall not apply ... to the production or gathering of natural gas.” But the Court, it was said, “has consistently held that ‘production’ and ‘gathering’ are terms narrowly confined to the physical acts of drawing the gas from the earth and preparing it for the first stages of distribution.” 372 U. S., at 90. Since Kansas’ order was directed not at “a producer but a purchaser of gas from producers,” ibid., Northern, being a purchaser, was not expressly exempted from the Act’s coverage.
Although it was “undeniable that a state may adopt reasonable regulations to prevent economic and physical waste of natural gas,” Cities Service Gas Co. v. Peerless Oil & Gas Co., 340 U. S., at 185, the Court did not view the ratable-take rule as a permissible conservation measure. Such measures target producers and production, while ratable-take requirements are “aimed directly at interstate purchasers and wholesales for resale.” Northern Natural, 372 U. S., at 94.
The Court identified the conflict between Kansas’ rule and the federal regulatory scheme in these terms: Congress had “enacted a comprehensive scheme of federal regulation of ‘all wholesales of natural gas in interstate commerce.’” Id., at 91, quoting Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Wisconsin, 347 U. S. 672, 682 (1954). “[UJniformity of regulation” was one of its objectives. 372 U. S., at 91-92. And, it was said:
“The danger of interference with the federal regulatory scheme arises because these orders are unmistakably and unambiguously directed at purchasers who take gas in Kansas for resale after transportation in interstate commerce. In effect, these orders shift to the shoulders of interstate purchasers the burden of performing the complex task of balancing the output of thousands of natural gas wells within the State .... Moreover, any readjustment of purchasing patterns which such orders might require of purchasers who previously took un-ratably could seriously impair the Federal Commission’s authority to regulate the intricate relationship between the purchasers’ cost structures and eventual costs to wholesale customers who sell to consumers in other States” (emphasis in original). Id., at 92.
Northern Natural’s finding of pre-emption thus rests on two considerations. First, Congress had created a comprehensive regulatory scheme, and ratable-take orders fell within the limits of that scheme rather than within the category of regulatory questions reserved for the States. Second, in the absence of ratable-take requirements, purchasers would choose a different, and presumably less costly, purchasing pattern. By requiring pipelines to follow the more costly pattern, Kansas’ order conflicted with the federal interest in protecting consumers by ensuring low prices.
Under the NGA, the Federal Power Commission’s comprehensive regulatory scheme involved “utility-type rate-making” control over prices and supplies. See Haase, The Federal Role in Implementing the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978, 16 Houston L. Rev. 1067, 1079 (1979). The FPC set price ceilings for sales from producers to pipelines and regulated the prices pipelines could charge their downstream customers. But “[i]n the early 1970’s, it became apparent that the regulatory structure was not working.” Public Service Comm’n of New York v. Mid-Louisiana Gas Co., 463 U. S. 319, 330 (1983). The Nation began to experience serious gas shortages. The NGA’s “artificial pricing scheme” was said to be a “major cause” of the imbalance between supply and demand. See S. Rep. No. 95-436, p. 50 (1977) (additional views of Senators Hansen, Hatfield, McClure, Bartlett, Weicker, Domenici, and Laxalt).
In response, Congress enacted the NGPA, which “has been justly described as ‘a comprehensive statute to govern future natural gas regulation.’” Mid-Louisiana Gas. Co., 463 U. S., at 332, quoting Note, Legislative History of the Natural Gas Policy Act, 59 Texas L. Rev. 101, 116 (1980). The aim of federal regulation remains to assure adequate supplies of natural gas at fair prices, but the NGPA reflects a congressional belief that a new system of natural gas pricing was needed to balance supply and demand. See S. Rep. No. 95-436, at 10. The new federal role is to “overse[e] a national market price regulatory scheme.” Haase, 16 Houston L. Rev., at 1079; see S. Rep. No. 95-436, at 21 (NGPA implements “a new commodity value pricing approach”). The NGPA therefore does not constitute a federal retreat from a comprehensive gas policy. Indeed, the NGPA in some respects expanded federal control, since it granted FERC jurisdiction over the intrastate market for the first time. See the Act’s §§311 and 312, 15 U. S. C. §§3371 and 3372.
Appellees argue, however, that §§601(a)(l)(B)(i) and (ii), 15 U. S. C. §§3431(a)(l)(B)(i) and (ii), stripped FERC of jurisdiction over the Harper Sand pool gas which was the subject of the Gas Board’s Rule 48 order, thereby leaving the State free to regulate Transco’s purchases. Section 601(a)(1)(B) states that “the provisions of [the NGA] and the jurisdiction of the Commission under such Act shall not apply solely by reason of any first sale” of high-cost or new natural gas. Moreover, although FERC retains some control over pipelines’ downstream pricing practices, § 601(c)(2) requires FERC to permit Transco to pass along to its customers the cost of the gas it purchases “except to the extent the Commission determines that the amount paid was excessive due to fraud, abuse, or similar grounds.” According to appel-lees, FERC’s regulation of Transco’s involvement with high-cost gas can now concern itself only with Transco’s sales to its customers; FERC, it is said, cannot interfere with Transco’s purchases of new natural gas from its suppliers. Appellees believe that the Gas Board order concerns only this latter relationship, and therefore is not pre-empted by federal regulation of other aspects of the gas industry.
That FERC can no longer step in to regulate directly the prices at which pipelines purchase high-cost gas, however, has little to do with whether state regulations that affect a pipeline’s costs and purchasing patterns impermissibly intrude upon federal concerns. Mississippi’s action directly undermines Congress’ determination that the supply, the demand, and the price of high-cost gas be determined by market forces. To the extent that Congress denied FERC the power to regulate affirmatively particular aspects of the first sale of gas, it did so because it wanted to leave determination of supply and first-sale price to the market. “[A] federal decision to forgo regulation in a given area may imply an authoritative federal determination that the area is best left -unregulated, and in that event would have as much preemptive force as a decision to regulate” (emphasis in original). Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corp. v. Arkansas Public Service Comm’n, 461 U. S., at 384. Cf. Machinists v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Comm’n, 427 U. S. 132, 150-151 (1976).
The proper question in this case is not whether FERC has affirmative regulatory power over wellhead sales of § 107 gas, but whether Congress, in revising a comprehensive federal regulatory scheme to give market forces a more significant role in determining the supply, the demand, and the price of natural gas, intended to give the States the power it had denied FERC. The answer to the latter question must be in the negative. First, when Congress meant to vest additional regulatory authority in the States it did so explicitly. See §§ 503(c) and 602(a), 15 U. S. C. §§3413(c) and 3432(a). Second, although FERC may now possess less regulatory jurisdiction over the “intricate relationship between the purchasers’ cost structures and eventual costs to wholesale customers who sell to consumers in other States,” Northern Natural, 372 U. S., at 92, than it did under the old regime, that relationship is still a subject of deep federal concern. FERC still must review Transco’s pricing practices, even though its review of Transco’s purchasing behavior has been circumscribed. See App. 148-150, 170. In light of Congress’ intent to move toward a less regulated national natural gas market, its decision to remove jurisdiction from FERC cannot be interpreted as an invitation to the States to impose additional regulations.
Mississippi’s order also runs afoul of other concerns identified in Northern Natural. First, it disturbs the uniformity of the federal scheme, since interstate pipelines will be forced to comply with varied state regulations of their purchasing practices. In light of the NGPA’s unification of the interstate and intrastate markets, the contention that Congress meant to permit the States to impose inconsistent regulations is especially unavailing. Second, Mississippi’s order would have the effect of increasing the ultimate price to consumers. Take-or-pay provisions are standard industrywide. See Pierce, 68 Va. L. Rev., at 77-78; H. R. Rep. No. 98-814, pp. 23-25, 133-134 (1984). Pipelines are already committed to purchase gas in excess of market demand. Mississippi’s rule will require Transco to take delivery of noncontract gas; this will lead Transco not to take delivery of contract gas elsewhere, thus triggering take-or-pay provisions. Trans-co’s customers will ultimately bear such increased costs, see App. 161, unless FERC finds that Transco’s purchasing practices are abusive. In fact, FERC is challenging, on grounds of abuse, the automatic passthrough of some of the costs Transco has incurred in its purchases of high-cost gas. See App. 177-178. In any event, the federal scheme is disrupted: if customers are forced to pay higher prices because of Mississippi’s ratable-take requirement, then Mississippi’s rule frustrates the federal goal of ensuring low prices most effectively; if FERC ultimately finds Transco’s practices abusive and refuses to allow a passthrough, then FERC’s and Mississippi’s orders to Transco will be in direct conflict.
The change in regulatory perspective embodied in the NGPA rested in significant part on the belief that direct federal price control exacerbated supply and demand problems by preventing the market from making long-term adjustments. Mississippi’s actions threaten to distort the market once again by artificially increasing supply and price. Although, in the long run, producers and pipelines may be able to adjust their selling and purchasing patterns to take account of ratable-take orders, requiring such future adjustments in an industry where long-term contracts are the norm will postpone achievement of Congress’ aims in enacting the NGPA. We therefore conclude that Mississippi’s ratable-take order is pre-empted.
IV
Because we have concluded that the Gas Board’s order is pre-empted by the NGA and NGPA, we need not reach the question whether, absent federal occupation of the field, Mississippi’s action would nevertheless run afoul of the Commerce Clause.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Mississippi is therefore reversed.
It is so ordered.
Order No. 409-82 directed Transco “forthwith to comply with Statewide Rule 48 of the State Oil and Gas Board of Mississippi in its purchases of gas from the said Harper Sand Gas Pool in Greens Creek and East Mor-gantown Fields, and. . . ratably take and purchase gas without discrimination in favor of one owner, operator or producer against another in the said common source of [sic] pool; and, specifically, in the event it so chooses and elects to take and purchase gas produced from the said common pool, Transco shall ratably take and purchase without discrimination in favor of the operators Getty and Tomlinson against Coastal, the Fairchilds, and Inexco.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 112a.
Transco’s other claims, a void-for-vagueness challenge, a Takings Clause argument, and various state-law claims, were rejected with one exception. The court found that, although the Gas Board had the power to order Transco to take ratably from the Harper Sand pool, it lacked the power to prohibit Transco from paying different prices for gas owned by nonparties to its original contracts. Therefore, Transco need pay Coastal only the current market price, rather than the higher price it was paying Getty and Tomlinson under its contracts with them.
A ratable-production order in essence allocates pro rata among interest owners the right to produce the amount of gas demanded. For example, if one interest owner owns 75% of the gas in a common pool with 100 units of gas and demand is 60 units, then the majority owner will be permitted to sell only 45 of his units, even though he owns, and is capable of producing, 75 units.
The Court noted, 340 U. S., at 185, that it had “upheld numerous kinds of state legislation designed to curb waste of natural resources and to protect the correlative rights of owners through ratable taking, Champlin Refining Co. v. Corporation Commission of Oklahoma, 286 U. S. 210 (1932),” but it is clear from the context of that statement that those challenges had involved claims by gas owners under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, rather than claims of federal pre-emption: “These ends have been held to justify control over production even though the uses to which property may profitably be put are restricted.” Id., at 185-186.
On October 31, 1985, FERC issued an initial decision, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., 33 FERC ¶63,026, finding that Transeo’s purchases of Harper Sand gas pursuant to the ratable-take order were not imprudent. But the grounds on which the Administrative Law Judge rested his conclusion demonstrate how Mississippi’s action impermissibly interferes with FERC’s regulatory jurisdiction.
FERC’s staff had requested the judge to order Transco “to pursue a least-cost purchasing strategy irrespective of Rule k8. ” Id., at 65,073 (emphasis in original). The judge refused: “In my view, Transco is entitled, indeed is required, to follow the decisions of the Mississippi authorities until and unless they be overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States.” Id., at 65,074.
Had the judge considered FERC’s claim on the merits, the conflict between the federal and state schemes would be patent. But his belief that he was constrained to find Transco’s practices reasonable because they were undertaken in compliance with Mississippi law is almost as demonstrative of pre-emption. First, Mississippi cannot be permitted to foreclose what would otherwise be more searching federal oversight of purchasing practices. Second, the mere exercise of federal regulatory power, even if it does not result in invalidation of the challenged act, shows continued federal occupation of the field. Since no evidence exists to suggest Congress intended FERC’s power to be circumscribed by state action, Rule 48 is pre-empted.
The dissent’s complaint that Congress did not intend to decontrol supply and demand, post, at 433, n. 5, misses the point. Congress clearly intended to eliminate the distortive effects that NGA price control had had on supply and demand. To suggest that Congress was willing to replace this distortion with a distortion on price caused by a State’s decision to require pipelines and, ultimately, interstate consumers, to purchase gas they do not want — the purpose of the order in this case — requires taking an artificially formalistic view of what Congress sought to achieve in the NGPA.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | J | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which The Chief Justice, Justice White, and Justice O’Connor join.
The United States and the State of North Dakota exercise concurrent jurisdiction over the Grand Forks Air Force Base and the Minot Air Force Base. Each sovereign has its own separate regulatory objectives with respect to the area over which it has authority. The Department of Defense (DoD), which operates clubs and package stores located on those bases, has sought to reduce the price that it pays for alcoholic beverages sold on the bases by instituting a system of competitive bidding. The State, which has established a liquor distribution system in order to promote temperance and ensure orderly market conditions, wishes to protect the integrity of that system by requiring out-of-state shippers to file monthly reports and to affix a label to each bottle of liquor sold to a federal enclave for domestic consumption. The clash between the State’s interest in preventing thé diversion of liquor and the federal interest in obtaining the lowest possible price forms the basis for the Federal Government’s Supremacy Clause and pre-emption challenges to the North Dakota regulations.
I
The United States sells alcoholic beverages to military personnel and their families at clubs and package stores on its military bases. The military uses revenue from these sales to support a morale, welfare, and recreation program for personnel and their families..See 32 CFR §261.3 (1989); DoD Directive 1015.1 (Aug. 19, 1981). Before December 1985, no federal statute governed the purchase of liquor for these establishments. From December 19, 1985, to October 19, 1986, federal law required military bases to purchase alcoholic beverages only within their home State. See Pub. L. 99-190, §8099, 99 Stat. 1219. Effective October 30, 1986, Congress eliminated the requirement that the military purchase liquor from within the State and directed that distilled spirits be “procured from the most competitive source, price and other factors considered.” Pub. L. 99-661, §313, 100 Stat. 3853, 10 U. S. C. § 2488(a).
In accordance with this statute, the DoD has developed a joint-military purchasing program to buy liquor in bulk directly from the Nation’s primary distributors who offer the lowest possible prices. Purchases are made pursuant to a DoD regulation which provides:
“ ‘The Department of Defense shall cooperate with local, state, and federal officials to the degree that their duties relate to the provisions of this chapter. However, the purchase of all alcoholic beverages for resale at any camp, post, station, base, or other DoD installation within the United States shall be in such a manner and under such conditions as shall obtain for the government the most advantageous contract, price and other considered factors. These other factors shall not be construed as meaning any submission to state control, nor shall cooperation be construed or represented as an admission of any legal obligation to submit to state control, pay state or local taxes, or purchase alcoholic beverages within geographical boundaries or at prices or from suppliers prescribed by any state.’” 32 CFR §261.4 (1989).
Since long before the enactment of the most recent procurement statute, the State of North Dakota has regulated the importation and distribution of alcoholic beverages within its borders. See N. D. Cent. Code ch. 5 (1987 and Supp. 1989). Under the State’s regulatory system, there are three levels of liquor distributors: out-of-state distillers/suppliers, state-licensed wholesalers, and state-licensed retailers. Distillers/suppliers may sell to only licensed wholesalers or federal enclaves. N. D. Admin. Code §84-02-01-05(2) (1986). Licensed wholesalers, in turn, may sell to licensed retailers, other licensed wholesalers, and federal enclaves. N. D. Cent. Code §5-03-01 (1987). Taxes are imposed at both levels of distribution. N. D. Cent. Code §5-03-07 (1987); N. D. Cent. Code ch. 57-39.2 (Supp. 1989). In order to monitor the importation of liquor, the State since 1978 has required all persons bringing liquor into the State to file monthly reports documenting the volume of liquor they have imported. The reporting regulation provides:
“All persons sending or bringing liquor into North Dakota shall file a North Dakota Schedule A Report of all shipments and returns for each calender month with the state treasurer. The report must be postmarked on or before the fifteenth day of the following month.” N. D. Admin. Code §84-02-01-05(1) (1986).
Since 1986, the State has also required out-of-state distillers who sell liquor directly to a federal enclave to affix labels to each individual item, indicating that the liquor is for domestic consumption only within the federal enclave. The labels may be purchased from the state treasurer for a small sum or printed by the distillers/suppliers themselves according to a state-approved format. App. 34. The labeling regulation provides:
“All liquor destined for delivery to a federal enclave in North Dakota for domestic consumption and not transported through a licensed North Dakota wholesaler for delivery to such bona fide federal enclave in North Dakota shall have clearly identified on each individual item that such shall be for consumption within the federal enclave exclusively. Such identification must be in a form and manner prescribed by the state treasurer.” N. D. Admin. Code §84-02-01-05(7) (1986).
Within the State of North Dakota, the United States operates two military bases: Grand Forks Air Force Base and Minot Air Force Base. The State and Federal Government exercise concurrent jurisdiction over both. Shortly after the effective date of the procurement statute permitting the military to make purchases from out of state, the state treasurer conducted a meeting with out-of-state suppliers to explain the labeling and reporting requirements. App. 34. Five out-of-state distillers and importers thereupon informed federal military procurement officials that they would not ship liquor to the North Dakota bases because of the burden of complying with the North Dakota regulations. A sixth supplier, Kobrand Importers, Inc., increased its prices from between $0.85 and $20.50 per case to reflect the cost of labeling and reporting.
The United States instituted this action in the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the application of the State’s regulations to liquor destined for federal enclaves. The District Court denied the United States’ cross-motion for summary judgment and granted the State’s motion. The court reasoned that there was no conflict between the state and federal regulations because the state regulations did not prevent the Government from obtaining beverages at the “lowest cost.” 675 F. Supp. 555, 557 (1987). A divided United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed. 856 F. 2d 1107 (1988). While recognizing that “nothing in the record compels us to believe that the regulations are a pretext to require in-state purchases,” id., at 1113, the majority held that the regulations impermissibly made out-of-state distillers less competitive with local wholesalers. Ibid. Chief Judge Lay argued in dissent that the effect on the Federal Government was a permissible incident of regulations passed pursuant to the State’s powers under the Twenty-first Amendment. Id., at 1115-1116. We noted probable jurisdiction, 489 U. S. 1095 (1989), and now reverse.
II
The Court has considered the power of the States to pass liquor control regulations that burden the Federal Government in four cases since the ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment. See Collins v. Yosemite Park & Curry Co., 304 U. S. 518 (1938); Hostetter v. Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp., 377 U. S. 324 (1964); United States v. Mississippi Tax Comm’n, 412 U. S. 363 (1973) (Mississippi Tax Comm’n I); United States v. Mississippi Tax Comm’n, 421 U. S. 599 (1975) (Mississippi Tax Comm’n II); see also Johnson v. Yellow Cab Transit Co., 321 U. S. 383 (1944). In each of those cases, we concluded that the State has no authority to regulate in an area or over a transaction that fell outside of its jurisdiction. In Collins, we held that the Twenty-first Amendment did not give the States the power to regulate the use of alcohol within a national park over which the Federal Government had exclusive jurisdiction. In Hostetter, we held that the Twenty-first Amendment conferred no authority to license the sale of tax-free liquors at an airport for delivery to foreign destinations made under the supervision of the United States Bureau of Customs. Mississippi Tax Comm’n I held that the State had no authority to regulate a transaction between an out-of-state liquor supplier and a federal military base within the exclusive federal jurisdiction. And, in Mississippi Tax Comm’n II, we held that the State has no authority to tax directly a federal instrumentality on an enclave over which the United States exercised concurrent jurisdiction.
At the same time, however, within the area of its jurisdiction, the State has “virtually complete control” over the importation and sale of liquor and the structure of the liquor distribution system. See California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc., 445 U. S. 97, 110 (1980); see also Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp, 467 U. S. 691, 712 (1984); California Board of Equalization v. Young’s Market Co., 299 U. S. 59 (1936). The Court has made clear that the States have the power to control shipments of liquor during their passage through their territory and to take appropriate steps to prevent the unlawful diversion of liquor into their regulated intrastate markets. In Hostetter, we stated that our decision in Collins, striking down the California Alcoholic Beverage Control Act as applied to an exclusive federal reservation, might have been otherwise if “California had sought to regulate or control the transportation of the liquor there involved from the time of its entry into the State until its delivery at the national park, in the interest of preventing unlawful diversion into her territory.” 377 U. S., at 333. We found that the state licensing law there under attack was unlawful because New York “ha[d] not sought to regulate or control the passage of intoxicants through her territory in the interest of preventing their unlawful diversion into the internal commerce of the State. As the District Court emphasized, this cáse does not involve ‘measures aimed at preventing unlawful diversion or use of alcoholic beverages within New York.’ 212 F. Supp., at 386.” Id., at 333-334.
In Mississippi Tax Comm’n I, supra, after holding that the State could n'ot impose its normal markup on sales to the military bases, we added that “a State may, in the absence of conflicting federal regulation, properly exercise its police powers to regulate and control such shipments during their passage through its territory insofar as necessary to prevent the ‘unlawful diversion’ of liquor ‘into the internal commerce of the State.’” 412 U. S., at 377-378 (citations omitted).
The two North Dakota regulations fall within the core of the State’s power under the Twenty-first Amendment. In the interest of promoting temperance, ensuring orderly market conditions, and raising revenue, the State has established a comprehensive system for the distribution of liquor within its borders. That system is unquestionably legitimate. See Carter v. Virginia, 321 U. S. 131 (1944); California Board of Equalization v. Young’s Market Co., 299 U. S. 59 (1936). The requirements that an out-of-state supplier which transports liquor into the State affix a label to each bottle of liquor destined for delivery to a federal enclave and that it report the volume of liquor it has transported are necessary components of the regulatory regime. Because liquor sold at Grand Forks and Minot Air Force Bases has been purchased directly from out-of-state suppliers, neither the markup nor the state taxes paid by liquor wholesalers and retailers in North Dakota is reflected in the military purchase price. Moreover, the federal enclaves are not governed by state laws with respect to the sale of intoxicants; the military establishes the type of liquor it sells, the minimum age of buyers, and the days and times its package stores will be open. The risk of diversion into the retail market and disruption of the liquor distribution system is thus both substantial and real. It is necessary for the State to record the volume of liquor shipped into the State and to identify those products which have not been distributed through the State’s liquor distribution system. The labeling and reporting requirements unquestionably serve valid state interests. Given the special protection afforded to state liquor control policies by the Twenty-first Amendment, they are supported by a strong presumption of validity and should not be set aside lightly. See, e. g., Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp, 467 U. S., at 714.
Ill
State law may run afoul of the Supremacy Clause in two distinct ways: The law may regulate the Government directly or discriminate against it, see McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 425-437 (1819), or it may conflict with an affirmative command of Congress. See Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 211 (1824); see also Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Laboratories, Inc., 471 U. S. 707, 712-713 (1985). The Federal Government’s attack on the regulations is based on both grounds of invalidity.
The Government argues that the state provisions governing the distribution of liquor by out-of-state shippers “regulate” governmental actions and are therefore invalid directly under the Supremacy Clause. The argument is unavailing. State tax laws, licensing provisions, contract laws, or even “a statute or ordinance regulating the mode of turning at the corner of streets,” Johnson v. Maryland, 254 U. S. 51, 56 (1920), no less than the reporting and labeling regulations at issue in this case, regulate federal activity in the sense that they make it more costly for the Government to do its business. At one time, the Court struck down many of these state regulations, see Panhandle Oil Co. v. Mississippi ex rel. Knox, 277 U. S. 218, 222 (1928) (state tax on military contractor); Dobbins v. Commissioners of Erie County, 16 Pet. 435 (1842) (tax on federal employee); Gillespie v. Oklahoma, 257 U. S. 501 (1922) (tax on lease of federal property); Weston v. City Council of Charleston, 2 Pet. 449 (1829) (tax on federal bond), on the theory that they interfered with “the constitutional means which have been legislated by the government of the United States to carry into effect its powers.” Dobbins, 16 Pet., at 449. Over 50 years ago, however, the Court decisively rejected the argument that any state regulation which indirectly regulates the Federal Government’s activity is unconstitutional, see James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U. S. 134 (1937), and that view has now been “thoroughly repudiated.” South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U. S. 505, 520 (1988); see also California Board of Equalization v. Sierra Summit, Inc., 490 U. S. 844, 848 (1989); Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico, 490 U. S. 163, 174 (1989).
The Court has more recently adopted a functional approach to claims of governmental immunity, accommodating of the full range of each sovereign’s legislative authority and respectful of the primary role of Congress in resolving conflicts between the National and State Governments. See United States v. County of Fresno, 429 U. S. 452, 467-468 (1977); cf. Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Auth., 469 U. S. 528 (1985). Whatever burdens are imposed on the Federal Government by a neutral state law regulating its suppliers “are but normal incidents of the organization within the same territory of two governments.” Helvering v. Gerhardt, 304 U. S. 405, 422 (1938); see also South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U. S., at 520-521; Penn Dairies, Inc. v. Milk Control Comm’n of Pennsylvania, 318 U. S. 261, 271 (1943); Graves v. New York ex rel. O’Keefe, 306 U. S. 466, 487 (1939). A state regulation is invalid only if it regulates the United States directly- or discriminates against the Federal Government or those with whom it deals. South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U. S., at 523; County of Fresno, 429 U. S., at 460. In addition, the question whether a state regulation discriminates against the Federal Government cannot be viewed in isolation. Rather, the entire regulatory system should be analyzed to determine whether it is discriminatory “with regard to the economic burdens that result.” Washington v. United States, 460 U. S. 536, 544 (1983). Claims to any further degree of immunity must be resolved under principles of congressional pre-emption. See, e. g., Penn Dairies, Inc. v. Milk Control Comm’n, 318 U. S., at 271; James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U. S., at 161.
Application of these principles to the North Dakota regulations demonstrates that they do not violate the intergovernmental immunity doctrine. There is no claim in this case, nor could there be, that North Dakota regulates the Federal Government directly. See United States v. New Mexico, 455 U. S. 720 (1982); Hancock v. Train, 426 U. S. 167 (1976); Mississippi Tax Comm’n II, 421 U. S., at 608-610; Mayo v. United States, 319 U. S. 441, 447 (1943). Both the reporting requirement and the labeling regulation operate against suppliers, not the Government, and concerns about direct interference with the Federal Government, see City of Detroit v. Murray Corp. of America, 355 U. S. 489, 504-505 (1958) (opinion of Frankfurter, J.), therefore are not implicated. In this respect, the regulations cannot be distinguished from the price control regulations and taxes imposed on Government contractors that we have repeatedly upheld against constitutional challenge. See United States v. City of Detroit, 355 U. S. 466 (1958); Penn Dairies, Inc., 318 U. S., at 279-280; Alabama v. King & Boozer, 314 U. S. 1, 8 (1941).
Nor can it be said that the regulations discriminate against the Federal Government or those with whom it deals. The nondiscrimination rule finds its reason in the principle that the States may not directly obstruct the activities of the Federal Government. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat., at 425-437. Since a regulation imposed on one who deals with the Government has as much potential to obstruct governmental functions as a regulation imposed on the Government itself, the Court has required that the regulation be one that is imposed on some basis unrelated to the object’s status as a Government contractor or supplier, that is, that it be imposed equally on other similarly situated constituents of the State. See, e. g., United States v. County of Fresno, 429 U. S., at 462-464. Moreover, in analyzing the constitutionality of a state law, it is not appropriate to look to the most narrow provision addressing the Government or those with whom it deals. A state provision that appears to treat the Government differently on the most specific level of analysis may, in its broader regulatory context, not be discriminatory. We have held that “[t]he State does not discriminate against the Federal Government and those with whom it deals unless it treats someone else better than it treats them.” Washington v. United States, 460 U. S., at 544-545.
The North Dakota liquor control regulations, the regulatory regime of which the Government complains, do not disfavor the Federal Government but actually favor it. The labeling and reporting regulations are components of an extensive system of statewide regulation that furthers legitimate interests in promoting temperance and controlling the distribution of liquor, in addition to raising revenue. The system applies to all liquor retailers in the State. In this system, the Federal Government is favored over all those who sell liquor in the State.' All other liquor retailers are required to purchase from state-licensed wholesalers, who are legally bound to comply with the State’s liquor distribution system. N. D. Cent. Code §5-03-01.1 (1987). The Government has the option, like the civilian retailers in the State, to purchase liquor from licensed wholesalers. However, alone among retailers in the State, the Government also has the option to purchase liquor from out-of-state wholesalers if those wholesalers comply with the labeling and reporting regulations. The system does not discriminate “with regard to the economic burdens that result.” Washington, 460 U. S., at 544. A regulatory regime which so favors the Federal Government cannot be considered to discriminate against it.
• IV
The conclusion that the labeling regulation does not violate the intergovernmental immunity doctrine does not end the inquiry into whether the regulation impermissibly interferes with federal activities. Congress has the power to confer immunity from state regulation on Government suppliers beyond that conferred by the Constitution alone, see, e. g., United States v. New Mexico, 455 U. S., at 737-738; Penn Dairies, Inc., 318 U. S., at 275, even when the state regulation is enacted pursuant to the State’s powers under the Twenty-first Amendment. Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp, 467 U. S., at 713. But when the Court is asked to set aside a regulation at the core of the State’s powers under the Twenty-first Amendment, as when it is asked to recognize an implied exemption from state taxation, see Rockford Life Ins. Co. v. Illinois Dept. of Revenue, 482 U. S. 182, 191 (1987), it must proceed with particular care. Capital Cities Cable, 467 U. S., at 714. Congress has not here spoken with sufficient clarity to pre-empt North Dakota’s attempt to protect its liquor distribution system.
The Government’s claim that the regulations are preempted rests upon a federal statute and federal regulation. The federal statute is 10 U. S. C. §2488, which governs the procurement of alcoholic beverages by nonappropriated fund instrumentalities. It provides simply that purchases of alcoholic beverages for resale on military installations “shall be made from the most competitive source, price and other factors considered,” § 2488(a)(1), but that malt beverages and wine shall be purchased from sources within the State in which the installation is located. It may be inferred from the latter provision as well as from the provision, elsewhere in the Code, that alcoholic beverages purchased for resale in Alaska and Hawaii must be purchased in state, Act of Oct. 30, 1986, Pub. L. 99-591, §9090, 100 Stat. 3341-116, that Congress intended for the military to be free in the other 48 States to purchase liquor from out-of-state wholesalers. It follows that the States may not directly restrict the military from purchasing liquor out of state. That is the central lesson of our decisions in Paul v. United States, 371 U. S. 245 (1963); United States v. Georgia Public Service Comm’n, 371 U. S. 285 (1963); Public Utilities Comm’n of California v. United States, 355 U. S. 534 (1958); and Leslie Miller, Inc. v. Arkansas, 352 U. S. 187 (1956), in which we invalidated state regulations that prohibited what federal law required. We stated in Paul that there was a “collision... clear and acute,” between the federal law which required competitive bidding among suppliers and the state law which directly limited the extent to which suppliers could compete. 371 U. S., at 253.
It is one thing, however, to say that the State may not pass regulations which directly obstruct federal law; it is quite another to say that they cannot pass regulations which incidentally raise the costs to the military. Any number of state laws may make it more costly for the military to purchase liquor. As Chief Judge Lay observed in dissent, “[c]ompliance with regulations regarding the importation of raw materials, general operations of the distillery or brewery, treatment of employees, bottling, and shipping necessarily increase the cost of liquor.” 856 F. 2d, at 1116. Highway tax laws and safety laws may make it more costly for the military to purchase from out-of-state shippers.
The language used in the 1986 procurement statute does not expressly pre-empt any of these state regulations or address the problem of unlawful diversion of liquor from military bases into the civilian market. It simply states that covered alcoholic beverages shall be obtained from the most competitive source, price and other factors considered. As the District Court observed, however, “‘[IJowest cost’ is a relative term.” 675 F. Supp., at 557. The fact that the reporting and labeling regulations, like safety laws or minimum wage laws, increase the costs for out-of-state shippers does not prevent the Government from obtaining liquor at the most competitive price, but simply raises that price. The procurement statute does not cut such a wide swath through state law as to invalidate the reporting and labeling regulations.
In this case the most competitive source for alcoholic beverages are out-of-state distributors whose prices are lower than those charged by North Dakota wholesalers regardless of whether the labeling and reporting requirements are enforced. The North Dakota regulations, which do not restrict the parties from whom the Government may purchase liquor or its ability to engage in competitive bidding, but at worst raise the costs of selling to the military for certain shippers, do not directly conflict with the federal statute.
V
The DoD regulation restates, in slightly different language, the statutory requirement that distilled spirits be “procured from the most competitive source, price and other factors considered,” but it does not purport to carry a greater pre-emptive power than the statutory command itself. It is Congress — not the DoD — that has the power to pre-empt otherwise valid state laws, and there is no language in the relevant statute that either pre-empts state liquor distribution laws or delegates to the DoD the power to pre-empt such state laws.
Nor does the text of the DoD regulation itself purport to pre-empt any state laws. See California Coastal Comm’n v. Granite Rock Co., 480 U. S. 572, 583 (1987); Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Laboratories, Inc., 471 U. S., at 717-718. It directs the military to consider various factors in determining “the most advantageous contract, price and other considered factors,” but that command cannot be understood to pre-empt state laws that have the incidental effect of raising costs for the military. Indeed, the regulation specifically envisions some regulation by state law, for it provides that the Department “shall cooperate with local [and] state... officials... to the degree that their duties relate to the provisions of this chapter.” The regulation does admonish that such cooperation should not be construed as an admission that the military is obligated to submit to state control or required to buy from suppliers located within the State or prescribed by the State. The North Dakota regulations, however, do not require the military to submit to state control or to purchase alcoholic beverage from suppliers within the State or prescribed by the State. The DoD regulation has nothing to say about labeling or reporting by out-of-state suppliers.
When the Court is confronted with questions relating to military discipline and military operations, we properly defer to the judgment of those who must lead our Armed Forces in battle. But in questions relating to the allocation of power between the Federal and State Governments on civilian commercial issues, we heed the command of Congress without any special deference to the military’s interpretation of that command.
The present record does not establish the precise burdens the reporting and labeling regulations will impose on the Government, but there is no evidence that they will be substantial. The reporting requirement has been in effect since 1978 and there is no evidence that it has caused any supplier to raise its costs or stop supplying the military. Although the labeling regulation has caused a few suppliers either to adjust their prices or to cease direct shipments to the bases, there has been no showing that there are not other suppliers willing to enter the market and there is no indication that the Government has made any attempt to secure other out-of-state suppliers. The cost of the labels is approximately three to five cents if purchased from the state treasurer, and the distillers have the right to print their own labels if they prefer. App. 34. Even in the initial stage of enforcing the requirement for the two bases in North Dakota, various distillers and suppliers have already notified the state treasurer that they intend to comply with the new regulations. Ibid. And, even if its worst predictions are fulfilled, the military-will still be the most favored customer in the State.
It is Congress, not this Court, which is best situated to evaluate whether the federal interest in procuring the most inexpensive liquor outweighs.the State’s legitimate interest in preventing diversion. Congress has already effected a compromise by excluding beer and wine and the States of Hawaii and Alaska from the 1986 statute. It may also decide to prohibit labels entirely or prescribe their use on a nationwide basis. It would be both an unwise and an unwarranted extension of the intergovernmental immunity doctrine for this Court to hold that the burdens associated with the labeling and reporting requirements — no matter how trivial they may prove to be — are sufficient to make them unconstitutional. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
It is so ordered.
Congress kept the rule requiring in-state purchases of distilled spirits for installations in Hawaii and Alaska and of beer and wine for installations throughout the United States. Act of Oct. 30, 1986, Pub. L. 99-591, §9090, 100 Stat. 3341-116.
The parties stipulated to concurrent jurisdiction but offered no further information. App. 16. A territory under concurrent jurisdiction is generally subject to the plenary authority of both the Federal Government and the State for the purposes of the regulation of liquor as well as the exercise of other police powers. See, e. g., United States v. Mississippi Tax Comm’n, 412 U. S. 363, 379-380 (1973); James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U. S. 134, 141-142 (1937); Surplus Trading Co. v. Cook, 281 U. S. 647, 650-651 (1930). The parties have not argued that North Dakota ceded its authority to regulate the importation of liquor destined for federal bases.
The five are Heublein, Inc., James B. Beam, Joseph Seagram & Sons, Inc., Somerset Importers, and Hiram Walker & Sons, Inc. App. 26.
Section 2 of the Twenty-first Amendment provides:
“The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.”
A member of the National Conference of State Liquor Administrators executed an affidavit describing the following types of misconduct that North Dakota liquor regulations are intended to prevent:
“a. Diversion of alcohol off a federal enclave in Hawaii by a dependent of a Department of Defense employee in quantities large enough to supply the dependent’s own liquor store in the private sector.
“b. Loss of quantities of alcohol from the time the supplier delivered the product to the Department of Defense personnel to the time when the product was to be inventoried or taken by Department of Defense personnel to another facility.
“c. Purchases of alcohol is [sic] quantities so large that the only logical explanation is that the alcohol was diverted from the military base into a state’s stream of commerce. This occurred in the state of Washington as documented by the Washington State Liquor Control Board’s February 20, 1987, letter to Mr. Chapman Cox, Assistant Secretary of Defense at the Pentagon in Washington, D. C. A copy of that letter is attached hereto as Attachment 1. The Washington State Liquor Control Board letter describes purchases of alcohol in quantities so large that on-base personnel would have had to individually consume 85 cases each during the fiscal year 1986. This amounts to 1,020 bottles or approximately 5 bottles per person per day, including Sundays and holidays.” App. 36.
Cf. Rice v. Rehner, 463 U. S. 713, 724 (1983) (“The State has an unquestionable interest in the liquor traffic that occurs within its borders”).
Thus, for example, in Public Utilities Comm’n of California v. United States, 355 U. S. 534 (1958), we put to one side “eases where, absent a conflicting federal regulation, a State seeks to impose safety or other requirements on a contractor who does business for the United States.” Id., at 543. We invalidated the state law because there was a clear conflict between the state policy of regulation of negotiated rates and the federal policy, expressed in statute and regulation, of negotiated rates. Id., at 544. Similarly, in Leslie Miller, Inc. v. Arkansas, 352 U. S. 187 (1956), the state licensing law came into direct conflict with “the action which Congress and the Department of Defense ha[d] taken to insure the reliability of persons and companies contracting with the Federal Government.” Id., at 190. Paul v. United States, 371 U. S. 245 (1963), involved the Armed Services Procurement Act and regulations promulgated thereunder. We stated that the collision between the federal policy, expressed in these laws, and the state policy was “clear and acute.” Id., at 253. In United States v. Georgia Public Service Comm’n, 371 U. S. 285 (1963), we relied upon the passage by Congress of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, which spoke too clearly to permit any state regulation of competitive bidding or negotiation.
In discussing why it was proper to convene a three-judge court, the Court in Georgia Public Service Comm’n did state: “Direct conflict between a state law and federal constitutional provisions raises of course a question under the Supremacy Clause but one of broader scope than where the alleged conflict is only between a state statute and a federal statute that might be resolved by the construction given either the state or the federal law.” Id., at 287 (citing Kesler v. Department of Public Safety of Utah, 369 U. S. 153 (1962)). That statement constituted an explanation for the assertion of jurisdiction, not an expression of a general principle of implied intergovernmental immunity. Under 28 U. S. C. § 2281 (1970 ed.), a three-judge court was required whenever a state statute was sought to be enjoined “upon the ground of the unconstitutionality of such statute”; Kesler held that such a court was required, and the Constitution was implicated, when the conflicting state and federal laws were clear. Georgia Public Service Comm’n raised a “broader” question because it could not “be resolved by the construction given either the state or the federal law.” 371 U. S., at 287. In Swift & Co. v. Wickham, 382 U. S. 111 (1965), we overruled Kesler and explained that the variant of Supremacy Clause jurisprudence there discussed was that which is
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | J | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Petitioner was charged in a two-count indictment in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia with robbing a High’s Dairy Products store on December 27, 1962 (count 1), and with assault with intent to rob upon the proprietress of a grocery store on January 24, 1963 (count 2), in violation of §§ 22-2901 and 22-501, respectively, of the District of Columbia Code. Following a trial by jury, he was found guilty on count 1 and not guilty on count 2. He was sentenced to imprisonment for from 3 to 10 years. A divided Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, 117 U. S. App. D. C. 346, 330 F. 2d 220. A petition for rehearing en banc was denied, four judges dissenting.
Slightly more than two hours after the jury retired to deliberate, the jury sent a note to the trial judge advising that it had been unable to agree upon a verdict “on both counts because of insufficient evidence.” The judge thereupon recalled the jury to the courtroom and in the course of his response stated that “You have got to reach a decision in this case.” We granted certiorari, 379 U. S. 944, to consider whether in its context and under all the circumstances of this case the statement was coercive. The Solicitor General in his brief in this Court stated:
“Of course, if this Court should conclude that the judge’s statement had the coercive effect attributed to it, the judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial; the principle that jurors may not be coerced into surrendering views conscientiously held is so clear as to require no elaboration.”
Upon review of the record, we conclude that in its context and under all the circumstances the judge’s statement had the coercive effect attributed to it. Accordingly the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial. Cf. Brasfield v. United States, 272 U. S. 448, 450; Burton v. United States, 196 U. S. 283, 307-308; United States v. Rogers, 289 F. 2d 433, 435 (C. A. 4th Cir.)
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Clark and Mr. Justice Harlan dissent.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice O'Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
case involves one of the most troubling public health problems facing our Nation today: the thousands of premature deaths that occur each year because of tobacco use. In 1996, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), after having expressly disavowed any such authority since its inception, asserted jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products. See 61 Fed. Reg. 44619-45318. The FDA concluded that nicotine is a “drug” within the meaning of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA or Act), 52 Stat. 1040, as amended, 21 U. S. C. § 301 et seq., and that cigarettes and smokeless tobacco are “combination products” that deliver nicotine to -the body. 61 Fed. Reg. 44397 (1996). Pursuant to this authority, it promulgated regulations intended to reduce tobacco consumption among children and adolescents. Id., at 44615-44618. The agency believed that, because most tobacco consumers begin their use before reaching the age of 18, curbing tobacco use by minors could substantially reduce the prevalence of addiction in future generations and thus the incidence of tobacco-related death and disease. Id., at 44398-44399.
Regardless of how serious the problem an administrative agency seeks to address, however, it may not exercise its authority “in a manner that is inconsistent with the administrative structure that Congress enacted into law.” ETSI Pipeline Project v. Missouri, 484 U. S. 495, 517 (1988). And although agencies are generally entitled to deference in the interpretation of statutes that they administer, a reviewing “court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.” Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 842-843 (1984). In this case, we believe that Congress has clearly precluded the FDA from asserting jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products. Such authority is inconsistent with the intent that Congress has expressed in the FDCA’s overall regulatory scheme and in the tobacco-specific legislation that it has enacted subsequent to the FDCA. In light of this clear intent, the FDA’s assertion of jurisdiction is impermissible.
I
The FDCA grants the FDA, as the designee of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), the authority to regulate, among other items, “drugs” and “devices.” See 21 U. S. C. §§ 321(g)-(h), 393 (1994 ed. and Supp. III). The Act defines, “drug” to include “articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body.” 21 U. S. C. § 321(g)(1)(C). It defines “device,” in part, as “an instrument, apparatus, implement, machine,, contrivance,... or other similar or related article, including any component, part, or accessory, which is... intended to affect the structure or any function of the body.” § 321(h). The Act also grants the FDA the authority to regulate so-called “combination products,” which “constitute a combination of a drug, device, or biological product.” § 353(g)(1). The FDA has construed this provision as giving it the discretion to regulate combination products as drugs, as devices, or as both. See 61 Fed. Reg. 44400 (1996).
On August 11, 1995, the FDA published a proposed rule concerning the sale of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco to children and adolescents. 60 Fed. Reg. 41314-41787. The rule, which included several restrictions on the sale, distribution, and advertisement of tobacco products, was designed to reduce the availability and attractiveness of tobacco products to young people. Id., at 41314. A public comment period followed, during which the FDA received over 700,000 submissions, more than “at any other time in its history on any other subject.” 61 Fed. Reg. 44418 (1996).
28, 1996, the FDA issued a final rule entitled “Regulations Restricting the Sale and Distribution of Cigarettes and Smokeless Tobacco to Protect Children and Adolescents.” Id., at 44396. The FDA determined that nicotine is a “drug” and that cigarettes and smokeless tobacco are “drug delivery devices,” and therefore it had jurisdiction under the FDCA to regulate tobacco products as customarily marketed — that is, without manufacturer claims of therapeutic benefit. Id., at 44397, 44402. First, the FDA found that tobacco products “‘affect the structure or any function of the body’ ” because nicotine “has significant pharmacological effects.” Id., at 44631. Specifically, nicotine “exerts psychoactive, or mood-altering, effects on the brain” that cause and sustain addiction, have both tranquilizing and stimulating effects, and control weight. ■ Id., at 44631-44632. Second, the FDA determined that these effects were “intended” under the FDCA because they “are so widely known and foreseeable that [they] may be deemed to have been intended by the manufacturers,” id., at 44687; consumers use tobacco products “predominantly or nearly exclusively” to obtain these effects, id., at 44807; and the statements, research, and actions of manufacturers revealed that they “have ‘designed’ cigarettes to provide pharmacologically active doses of nicotine to consumers,” id., at 44849. Finally, the agency concluded that cigarettes and smokeless tobacco are “combination products” because, in addition to containing nicotine, they include device components that deliver a controlled amount of nicotine to the body, id., at 45208-45216.
the jurisdictional question, the FDA next explained the policy justifications for its regulations, detailing the deleterious health effects associated with tobacco use. It found that tobacco consumption was “the single leading cause of preventable death in the United States.” Id., at 44398. According to the FDA, “[m]ore than 400,000 people die each year from tobacco-related illnesses, such as cancer, respiratory illnesses, and heart disease.” Ibid. The agency also determined that the only way to reduce the amount of tobacco-related illness and mortality was to reduce the level of addiction, a goal that could be accomplished only by preventing children and adolescents from starting to use tobacco. Id., at 44398-44399. The FDA found that 82% of adult smokers had their first cigarette before the age of 18, and more than half had already become regular smokers by that age. Id., at 44398. It also found that children were beginning to smoke at a younger age, that the prevalence of youth smoking had recently increased, and that similar problems existed with respect to smokeless tobacco. Id., at 44398-44399. The FDA accordingly concluded that if “the number of children and adolescents who begin tobacco use can be substantially diminished, tobacco-related illness can be correspondingly reduced because data suggest that anyone who does not begin smoking in childhood or adolescence is unlikely ever to begin.” Id., at 44399.
Based on these findings, the FDA promulgated regulations concerning tobacco products’ promotion, labeling, and accessibility to children and adolescents. See id., at 44615-44618. The access regulations prohibit the sale of cigarettes or smokeless tobacco to persons younger than 18; require retailers to verify through photo identification the age of all purchasers younger than 27; prohibit the sale of cigarettes in quantities smaller than 20; prohibit the distribution of free samples; and prohibit sales through self-service displays and vending machines except in adult-only locations. Id., at 44616-44617. The promotion regulations require that any print advertising appear in a black-and-white, text-only format unless the publication in which it appears is read almost exclusively by adults; prohibit outdoor advertising within 1,000 feet of any public playground or school; prohibit the distribution of any promotional items, such as T-shirts or hats, bearing the manufacturer’s brand name; and prohibit a manufacturer from sponsoring any athletic, musical, artistic, or other social or cultural event using its brand name. Id., at 44617-44618. The labeling regulation requires that the statement, “A Nicotine-Delivery Device for Persons 18 or Older,” appear on all tobacco product packages. Id., at 44617.
PDA promulgated these regulations pursuant to its authority to regulate "restricted devices.” See 21 U. S. C. §360j(e). The PDA construed § 353(g)(1) as giving it the discretion to regulate “combination products” using the Act’s drug authorities, device authorities, or both, depending on “how the public health goals of the act can be best accomplished.” 61 Fed. Reg. 44403 (1996). Given the greater flexibility in the FDCA for the regulation of devices, the FDA determined that “the device authorities provide the most appropriate basis for regulating cigarettes and smokeless tobacco.” Id., at 44404. Under 21 U. S. C. § 360j(e), the agency may “require that a device be restricted to sale, distribution, or use... upon such other conditions as [the FDA] may prescribe in such regulation, if, because of its potentiality for harmful effect or the collateral measures necessary to its use, [the FDA] determines that there cannot otherwise be reasonable assurance of its safety and effectiveness.” The FDA reasoned that its regulations fell within the authority granted by §360j(e) because they related to the sale or distribution of tobacco products and were necessary for providing a reasonable assurance of safety. 61 Fed. Reg. 44405-44407 (1996).
Respondents, a group of tobacco manufacturers, retailers, and advertisers, filed suit in United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina challenging the regulations. See Coyne Beahm, Inc. v. FDA, 966 F. Supp. 1374 (1997). They moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the FDA lacked jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products as customarily marketed, the regulations exceeded the FDA’s authority under 21 U. S. C. §360j(e), and the advertís-ing restrictions violated the First Amendment. Second Brief in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment in No. 2.-95CV0059I (MDNC), in 3 Ree. in No. 97-1604 (CA4), Tab No. 40; Third Brief in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment in No. 2:95CV00591 (MDNC), in 3 Rec. in No. 97-1604 (CA4), Tab No. 42. The District Court granted respondents’ motion in part and denied it in part. 966 F. Supp., at 1400. The court held that the FDCA authorizes the FDA to regulate tobacco products as customarily marketed and that the FDA’s access and labeling regulations are permissible, but it also found that the agency’s advertising and promotion restrictions exceed its authority under § 360j(e). Id., at 1380-1400. The court stayed implementation of the regulations it found valid (except the prohibition on the sale of tobacco products to minors) and certified its order for immediate interlocutory appeal. Id., at 1400-1401.
The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed, holding that Congress has not granted the FDA jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products. See 153 F. 3d 155 (1998). Examining the FDCA as a whole, the court concluded that the FDA’s regulation of tobacco products would create a number of internal inconsistencies. Id., at 162-167. Various provisions of the Act require the agency to determine that any regulated product is “safe" before it can be sold or allowed to remain on the market, yet the FDA found in its rulemaking proceeding that tobacco products are “dangerous” and “unsafe.” Id., at 164-167. Thus, the FDA would apparently have to ban tobacco products, a result the court found clearly contrary to congressional intent. Ibid. This apparent anomaly, the Court of Appeals concluded, demonstrates that Congress did not intend to give the FDA authority to regulate tobacco. Id., at 167. The court also found that evidence external to the FDCA confirms this conclusion. Importantly, the FDA consistently stated before 1995 that it lacked jurisdiction over tobacco, and Congress has enacted several tobaeco-speeific statutes fully cognizant of the FDA’s position. See id., at 168-176. In fact, the court reasoned, Congress has considered and rejected many bills that would have given the agency such authority. See id., at 170-171. This, along with the absence of any intent by the enacting Congress in 1938 to subject tobacco products to regulation under the FDCA, demonstrates that Congress intended to withhold such authority from the FDA. Id., at 167-176. Having resolved the jurisdictional question against the agency, the Court of Appeals did not address whether the regulations exceed the FDA’s authority under 21 U. S. C. §360j(e) or violate the First Amendment. See 153 F. 3d, at 176, n. 29.
We granted the federal parties’ petition for certiorari, 526 U. S. 1086 (1999), to determine whether the FDA has authority under the FDCA to regulate tobacco products as customarily marketed.
II
The FDA’s assertion of jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products is founded on its conclusions that nicotine is a “drug” and that cigarettes and smokeless tobacco are “drug delivery devices.” Again, the FDA found that tobacco products are “intended” to deliver the pharmacological effects of satisfying addiction, stimulation and tranquilization, and weight control because those effects are foreseeable to any reasonable manufacturer, consumers use tobacco products to obtain those effects, and tobacco manufacturers have designed their products to produce those effects. 61 Fed. Reg. 44632-44633 (1996). As an initial matter, respondents take issue with the FDA’s reading of “intended,” arguing that it is a term of art that refers exclusively to claims made by the manufacturer or vendor about the product. See Brief for Respondent Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. 6. That is, a product is not a drug or device under the FDCA unless the manufacturer or vendor makes some express claim concerning the product’s therapeutic benefits. See id., at 6-7. We need not resolve this question, however, because assuming, arguendo, that a product can be “intended to affect the structure or any function of the body” absent claims of therapeutic or medical benefit, the FDA’s claim to jurisdiction contravenes the clear intent of Congress.
A threshold issue is the appropriate framework for analyzing the FDA’s assertion of authority to regulate tobacco products. Because this case involves an administrative agency’s construction of a statute that it administers, our analysis is governed by Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837 (1984). Under Chevron, a reviewing court must first ask “whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue.” Id., at 842. If Congress has done so, the inquiry is at an end; the court “must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.” Id., at 848; see also United States v. Haggar Apparel Co., 526 U. S. 380, 392 (1999); Holly Farms Corp. v. NLRB, 517 U. S. 392, 398 (1996). But if Congress has not specifically addressed the question, a reviewing court must respect the agency’s construction of the statute so long as it is permissible. See INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U. S. 415, 424 (1999); Auer v. Robbins, 519 U. S. 452, 457 (1997). Such deference is justified because “[t]he responsibilities for assessing the wisdom of such policy choices and resolving the struggle between competing views of the public interest are not judicial ones,” Chevron, supra, at 866, and because of the agency’s greater familiarity with the ever-changing facts and circumstances surrounding the subjects regulated, see Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U. S. 173, 187 (1991).
In determining whether Congress has specifically addressed the question at issue, a reviewing court should not confine itself to examining a particular statutory provision in isolation. The meaning — or ambiguity — of certain words or phrases may only become evident when placed in context. See Brown v. Gardner, 513 U. S. 115, 118 (1994) (“Ambiguity is a creature not of definitional possibilities but of statutory context”). It is a “fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.” Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 489 U. S. 803, 809 (1989). A court must therefore interpret the statute “as a symmetrical and coherent regulatory scheme,” Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U. S. 561, 569 (1995), and “fit, if possible, all parts into an harmonious whole,” FTC v. Mandel Brothers, Inc., 359 U. S. 385, 389 (1959). Similarly, the meaning of one statute may be affected by other Acts, particularly where Congress has spoken subsequently and more specifically to the topic at hand. See United States v. Estate of Romani, 523 U. S. 517, 530-531 (1998); United States v. Fausto, 484 U. S. 439, 453 (1988). In addition, we must be guided to a degree by common sense as to the manner in which Congress is likely to delegate a policy decision of such economic and political magnitude to an administrative agency. Cf. MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 512 U. S. 218, 231 (1994).
principles in mind, we find that Congress has directly spoken to the issue here and precluded the FDA’s jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products.
A
Viewing the FDCA as a whole, it is evident that one of the Act’s core objectives is to ensure that any product regulated by the FDA is “safe” and “effective” for its intended use. See 21 U. S. C. § 393(b)(2) (1994 ed., Supp. Ill) (defining the FDA’s mission); More Information for Better Patient Care: Hearing before the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, 104th Cong., 2d Sess., 83 (1996) (statement of FDA Deputy Comm’r Schultz) (“A fundamental precept of drug and device regulation in this country is that these products must be proven safe and effective before they can be sold”). This essential purpose pervades the FDCA. For instance, 21 U. S. C. § 393(b)(2) (1994 ed., Supp. Ill) defines the FDA’s “[mission” to include “protecting] the public health by ensuring that... drugs are safe and effective” and that “there is reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of devices intended for human use.” The FDCA requires premarket approval of any new drug, with some limited exceptions, and states that the FDA “shall issue, an order refusing to approve the application” of a new drug if it is not safe and effective for its intended purpose. §§ 355(d)(1) — (2), (4)-(5). If the FDA discovers after approval that a drug is unsafe or ineffective, it “shall, after due notice and opportunity for hearing to the applicant, withdraw approval” of the drug. 21 U. S. C. §§ 355(e)(1) — (3). The Act also requires the FDA to classify all devices into one of three categories. § 360c(b)(1). Regardless of which category the FDA chooses, there must be a “reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.” 21 U. S. C. §§ 360e(a)(1)(A)(i), (B), (C) (1994 ed. and Supp. Ill); 61 Fed. Reg. 44412 (1996). Even the “restricted device” provision pursuant to which the FDA promulgated the regulations at issue here authorizes the agency to place conditions on the sale or distribution of a device specifically when “there cannot otherwise be reasonable assurance of its safety and effectiveness.” 21 U. S. C. § 360j(e). Thus, the Act generally requires the FDA to prevent the marketing of any drug or device where the “potential for inflicting death or physical injury is not offset by the possibility of therapeutic benefit.” United States v. Rutherford, 442 U. S. 544, 556 (1979).
In its rulemaking proceeding, the FDA quite exhaustively documented that “tobacco products are unsafe,” “dangerous,” and “cause great pain and suffering from illness.” 61 Fed. Reg. 44412 (1996). It found that the consumption of tobacco products presents “extraordinary health risks,” and that “tobacco use is the single leading cause of preventable death in the United States.” Id., at 44398. It stated that “[m]ore than 400,000 people die each year from tobacco-related illnesses, such as cancer, respiratory illnesses, and heart disease, often suffering long and painful deaths,” and that “[tjobacco alone kills more people each year in the United States than acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), car accidents, alcohol, homicides, illegal drugs, suicides, and fires, combined.” Ibid. Indeed, the FDA charae-. terized smoking as “a pediatric disease,” id., at 44421, because “one out of every three young people who become regular smokers... will die prematurely as a result,” id., at 44399.
These findings logically imply that, if tobacco products were “devices” under the FDCA, the FDA would be required to remove them from the market. Consider, first, the FDCA’s provisions concerning the misbranding of drugs or devices. The Act prohibits “[t]he introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any food, drug, device, or cosmetic that is adulterated or misbranded.” 21 U. S. C. § 331(a). In light of the FDA’s findings, two distinct FDCA provisions would render cigarettes and smokeless tobacco misbranded devices. First, §352(j) deems a drug or device misbranded “[i]f it is dangerous to health when used in the dosage or manner, or with the frequency or duration prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling thereof.” The FDA’s findings make clear that tobacco products are “dangerous to health” when used in the manner prescribed. Second, a drug or device is misbranded under the Act “[u]nless its labeling bears... adequate directions for use... in such manner and form, as are necessary for the protection of users,” except where such directions are “not necessary for the protection of the public health.” § 352(f)(1). Given the FDA’s conclusions concerning the health consequences of tobacco use, there are no directions that could adequately protect consumers. That is, there are no directions that could make tobacco products safe for obtaining their intended effects. Thus, were tobacco products within the FDA’s jurisdiction, the Act would deem them mis-branded devices that could not be introduced into interstate commerce. Contrary to the dissent’s contention, the Act admits no remedial discretion once it is- evident that the device is misbranded.
Second, the FDCA requires the FDA to place all devices that it regulates into one of three classifications. See § 360c(b)(l). The agency relies on a device’s classification in determining the degree of control and regulation necessary to ensure that there is “a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness.” 61 Fed. Reg. 44412 (1996). The FDA has yet to classify tobacco products. Instead, the regulations at issue here represent so-called “general controls,” which the Act entitles the agency to impose in advance of classification. See id., at 44404-44405. Although the FDCA prescribes no deadline for device classification, the FDA has stated that it will classify tobacco products “in a future rulemaking” as required by the Act. Id., at 44412. Given the FDA’s findings regarding the health consequences of tobacco use, the agency would have to place cigarettes and smokeless tobacco in Class III because, even after the application of the Act’s available controls, they would “presen[t] a potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury.” 21 U. S. C. § 360c(a)(l)(C). As Class III devices, tobacco products would be subject to the FDCA’s premarket approval process. See 21 U. S. C. § 360c(a)(1)(C) (1994 ed., Supp. Ill); 21 U. S. C. §360e; 61 Fed. Reg. 44412 (1996). Under these provisions, the FDA would be prohibited from approving an application for pre-market approval without “a showing of reasonable assurance that such device is safe under the conditions of use prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the proposed labeling thereof.” 21 U. S. C. § 360e(d)(2)(A). In view of the FDA’s conclusions regarding the health effects of tobacco use, the agency would have no basis for finding any such reasonable assurance of safety. Thus, once the FDA fulfilled its statutory obligation to classify tobacco products, it could not allow them to be marketed.
The FDCA’s misbranding and device classification provisions therefore make evident that were the FDA to regulate cigarettes and smokeless tobacco, the Act would require the agency to ban them. In fact, based on these provisions, the FDA itself has previously taken the position that if tobacco products were within its jurisdiction, “they would have to be removed from the market because it would be impossible to prove they were safe for their intended us[e].” Public Health Cigarette Amendments of 1971: Hearings before the Commerce Subcommittee on S. 1454, 92d Cong., 2d Sess., 239 (1972) (hereinafter 1972 Hearings) (statement of FDA Comm’r Charles Edwards). See also Cigarette Labeling and Advertising: Hearings before the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 88th Cong., 2d Sess., 18 (1964) (hereinafter 1964 Hearings) (statement of Dept, of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) Secretary Anthony Celebrezze that proposed amendments to the FDCA that would have given the FDA jurisdiction over “smoking product[s]” “might well completely outlaw at least cigarettes”).
the removal of tobacco products from the market. A provision of the United States Code currently in force states that “[t]he marketing of tobacco constitutes one of the greatest basic industries of the United States with ramifying activities which directly affect interstate and foreign commerce at every point, and stable conditions therein are necessary to the general welfare.” 7 U. S. C. § 1311(a). More importantly, Congress has directly addressed the problem of tobacco and health through legislation on six occasions since 1965. See Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (FCLAA), Pub. L. 89-92, 79 Stat. 282; Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969, Pub. L. 91-222, 84 Stat. 87; Alcohol and Drug Abuse Amendments of 1983, Pub. L. 98-24, 97 Stat. 175; Comprehensive Smoking Education Act, Pub. L. 98-474, 98 Stat. 2200; Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco Health Education Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99-252, 100 Stat. 30; Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration Reorganization Act, Pub. L. 102-321, § 202,106 Stat. 394. When Congress enacted these statutes, the adverse health consequences of tobacco use were well known, as were nicotine’s pharmacological effects. See, e. g., U. S. Dept, of Health, Education, and Welfare, U. S. Surgeon General’s Advisory Committee, Smoking and Health 25-40, 69-75 (1964) (hereinafter 1964 Surgeon General’s Report) (concluding that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer, coronary artery disease, and chronic bronchitis and emphysema, and that nicotine has various pharmacological effects, including stimulation, tranquilization, and appetite suppression); U. S. Dept, of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Health Consequences of Smoking for Women 7-12 (1980) (finding that mortality rates for lung cancer, chronic lung disease, and coronary heart disease are increased for both women and men smokers, and that smoking during pregnancy is associated with significant adverse health effects on the unborn fetus and newborn child); U. S. Dept, of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Why People Smoke Cigarettes (1983), in Smoking Prevention Education Act, Hearings on H. R. 1824 before the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, 98th Cong., 1st Sess., 32-37 (1983) (hereinafter 1983 House Hearings) (stating that smoking is “the most widespread example of drug dependence in our country,” and that--cigarettes “affect the chemistry of the brain and nervous system”); U. S. Dept, of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, The Health Consequences of Smoking: Nicotine Addiction 6-9, 145-239 (1988) (hereinafter 1988 Surgeon General’s Report) (concluding that tobacco products are addicting in much the same way as heroin and cocaine, and that nicotine is the drug that causes addiction). Nonetheless, Congress stopped well short of ordering a ban. Instead, it has generally regulated the labeling and advertisement of tobacco products, expressly providing that it is the policy of Congress that “commerce and the national economy may be... protected to the maximum extent consistent with” consumers “be[ing] adequately informed about any adverse health effects.” 15 U. S. C. § 1331. Congress’ decisions to regulate labeling and advertising and to adopt the express policy of protecting “commerce and the national economy... to the maximum extent” reveal its intent that tobacco products remain on the market. Indeed, the collective premise of these statutes is that cigarettes and smokeless tobacco will continue to be sold in the United States. A ban of tobacco products by the FDA would therefore plainly contradict congressional policy.
FDA apparently recognized this dilemma and concluded, somewhat ironically, that tobacco products are actually “safe” within the meaning of the FDCA. In promulgating its regulations, the agency conceded that “tobacco products are unsafe, as that term is conventionally understood.” 61 Fed. Reg. 44412 (1996). Nonetheless, the FDA reasoned that, in determining whether a device is safe under the Act, it must consider “not only the risks presented by a product but also any of the countervailing effects of use of that product, including the consequences of not permitting the product to be marketed.” Id., at 44412-44413. Applying this standard, the FDA found that, because of the high level of addiction among tobacco users, a ban would likely be “dangerous.” Id., at 44413. In particular, current tobacco users could suffer from extreme withdrawal, the health care system and available pharmaceuticals might not be able to meet the treatment demands of those suffering from withdrawal, and a black market offering cigarettes even more dangerous than those currently sold legally would likely develop. Ibid. The FDA therefore concluded that, “while taking cigarettes and smokeless tobacco off the market could prevent some people from becoming addicted and reduce death and disease for others, the record does not establish that such a ban is the appropriate public health response under the act.” Id., at 44398.
It may well be, as the PDA asserts, that “these factors must be considered when developing a regulatory scheme that achieves the best public health result for these products.” Id., at 44413. But the FDA’s judgment that leaving tobacco products on the market “is more effective in achieving public health goals than a ban,” ibid., is no substitute for the specific safety determinations required by the FDCA’s various operative provisions. Several provisions in the Act require the FDA to determine that the product itself is safe as used by consumers. That is, the product’s probable therapeutic benefits must outweigh its risk of harm. See United States v. Rutherford, 442 U. S., at 555 (“[T]he Commissioner generally considers a drug safe when the expected therapeutic gain justifies the risk entailed by its use”). In contrast, the FDA’s conception of safety would allow the agency, with respect to each provision of the FDCA that requires the agency to determine a product’s “safety” or “dangerousness,” to compare the aggregate health effects of alternative administrative actions. This is a qualitatively different inquiry. Thus, although the FDA has concluded that a ban would be “dangerous,” it has not concluded that tobacco products are “safe” as that term is used throughout the Act.
Consider 21 U. S. C. § 360c(a)(2), which specifies those factors that the FDA may consider in determining the safety and effectiveness of a device for purposes of classification, performance standards, and premarket approval. For all devices regulated by the FDA, there must at least be a “reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.” See 21 U.S.C. §§360c(a)(l)(A)(i), (B), (C) (1994 ed. and Supp. III); 61 Fed. Reg. 44412 (1996). Title 21 U. S. C. § 360c(a)(2) provides that
“the safety and effectiveness of a device are to be determined—
“(A) with respect to the persons for whose use the device is represented or intended,
“(B) with respect to the conditions of use prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling of the device, and
“(C) weighing any probable benefit to health from the use of the device against any probable risk of injury or illness from such use.”
A straightforward reading of this provision dictates that the FDA must weigh the probable therapeutic benefits of the device to the consumer against the probable risk of injury. Applied to tobacco products, the inquiry is whether their purported benefits — satisfying addiction, stimulation and sedation, and weight control — outweigh the risks to health from their use. To accommodate the FDA’s conception of safety, however, one must read “any probable benefit to health” to include the benefit to public health stemming from adult consumers’ continued use of tobacco products, even though the reduction of tobacco use is the raison d’etre of the regulations. In other words, the FDA is forced to contend that the very evil it seeks to combat is a “benefit to health.” This is implausible.
The FDA’s conception of safety is also incompatible with the FDCA’s misbranding provision. Again, §352(j) provides that a product is “misbranded” if “it is dangerous to health when used in the dosage or manner, or with the frequency or duration prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling thereof.” According to the FDA’s understanding, a product would be “dangerous to health,” and therefore misbranded under § 352(j), when, in comparison to leaving the product on the market, a ban would not produce “adverse health consequences” in aggregate. Quite simply, these are different inquiries. Although banning a particular product might be detrimental to public health in aggregate, the product could still be “dangerous to health” when used as directed. Section 352(j
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.